[HN Gopher] Leaked emails show crime app Citizen is testing on-d... ___________________________________________________________________ Leaked emails show crime app Citizen is testing on-demand security force Author : codq Score : 232 points Date : 2021-05-21 17:56 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.vice.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.vice.com) | figbert wrote: | This is the most cyberpunk think I've read all week. Yes please. | tisFine wrote: | I predict the demise of this company when one of their entitled | rent-a-cops gets 2nd Amendmented for harassing people without | legal authority. | dang wrote: | Ongoing related thread: _Citizen CEO offered to personally fund | LA arson manhunt for the wrong person_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27236660 | Gunax wrote: | This is what will happen when you defund the police. | | Its not the end if law enforcement, it's the end of equal | (supposedly) law enforcement. | andrewzah wrote: | Adequately funded police can still take forever to arrive or | decide not to come at all. This has absolutely zero to do with | defunding police. Which by the way doesn't mean taking -all- of | their money away. It means readjusting their budgets and | allocating some of that money to other types of responders. | | There always has been a market for immediate response private | security, if one has the money. | ummonk wrote: | Theoretically, a well-funded government police force could | actually provide some on-demand services like this to the | general public. | realmod wrote: | The reality is that police funding has maintained even | throughout the "defund movement", so this situation is not | caused by police defunding. | Simulacra wrote: | "Now a Burbclave, that's the place to live. A city-state with its | own constitution, a border, laws, cops, everything." | chasd00 wrote: | if you use the app and call for help, who shows up to help? If | it's someone trained and equipped to deal with any emergency i | don't see how it's going to be even remotely affordable. They | would have to keep scores of these people all over every part of | every city. | | If it's just a random person who signed up as a responder i think | they'd make the situation worse instead of better. | donmcronald wrote: | People lack critical thinking skills. Anyone who thinks they're | getting better value from a consumption priced private service | than from a public institution funded by the progressive tax | system isn't considering the economics of it. | | Like I said in another thread... You're paying $20 per month to | be a surveillance endpoint so Citizen can sell the real | services to the rich. | podric wrote: | What a brilliant idea from a business standpoint! | | Just like how rideshare apps increased the availability of car | services in areas underserved by traditional taxies, on-demand | security services like this can provide value in a similar way, | by making available security services in areas underserved by the | police. | scarmig wrote: | Citizen's implementation aside, I feel like there's a real market | for something like this. I was walking down the street a few | months ago and was physically attacked by somebody (as in, the | man punched and attacked me until I ran out into the middle of | the street into oncoming traffic for safety). | | I feel like there should be some sort of service that's able to | offer some kind of protection in situations like this, or at | least able to track down and prevent this kind of person from | recommitting after he's shown a willingness to violently attack | other people. | jeffbee wrote: | Exactly what do you imagine the hypothetical service's response | would be? | scarmig wrote: | Something that'd disincentivize or prevent him from doing it | again. Ideally detain him and rehabilitate him. Barring that, | track him and have people ready to physically intervene when | he attacks someone. | | It's unpleasant to be physically assaulted, and I'd like to | avoid it in the future. | kelnos wrote: | Response time isn't zero, though. Likely the attacker would | be long gone before these people show up. | | I agree it's unpleasant being physically assaulted on the | street (happened to me 8 years ago and I still think about | it often), as is the utter lack of interest from the police | in helping in such situations, but I don't think a private | security force is going to do much better. | | And to your other point, there is already a thing for | tracking someone down after the fact if the police aren't | helpful: private investigators. | jeffbee wrote: | That might work in Somalia but for a private entity to | detain a person on the say-so of another private person | would obviously violate the civil rights of the 2nd party. | scarmig wrote: | It also violates the civil rights of a private entity if | someone beats and attacks him on the street, doesn't it? | throwaway292893 wrote: | File a police report. Move somewhere the local government | backs their police and they do their job. | | What you want is the ability to pay to get expedited help, | to which I say is that the fair option to those who can't | afford to pay for protection? | scarmig wrote: | The idea that police help in situations like this betrays | a lack of experience living in San Francisco. | | Ideally everyone would be protected from random attacks | on the street, not just those able to pay. | drusepth wrote: | The article mentions a security escort service that seems | like it'd have the chilling effect necessary to quell random | people attacking you on the street, rather than relying on a | "response". | donmcronald wrote: | What if the problem is groups of random people? How much | does it cost for an escort with an APC and a dozen guards? | | The sad thing about this is that people can't figure out | that $20 / month won't buy you a 15 minute phone call. | You're paying $20 per month to be a surveillance endpoint | so Citizen can sell the real services to the rich. | | America is filled with suckers. | jostmey wrote: | Short sci-fi film beautifully illustrating the dangers | https://youtu.be/Eo2OQsPDwBI | | It is also entertaining to watch | toss1 wrote: | >>Protect also advertises "Instant emergency response to your | exact location," | | Seems like a bit of overselling here. "Rapid emergency | response..." would be more like it. Although the request and | communication to initiate response may take only seconds, the | actual arrival time is unlikely to resemble "instant". | | Marketing getting ahead of the ability to deliver... | slownews45 wrote: | This is usually a sign of some perceived failure of the public | option. | | Public schools in NY not delivering education some folks expect | -> market starts for private schools. | | Existing delivery service not able to do guaranteed same or next | day delivery -> merchants and others will build out their own | capacity. | | My guess is that as police are defunded (Minneapolis is getting | rid of police department entirely) folks who can pay and see a | role for security will probably contract for it. In the bay area | this is already happening to a small degree. | | It used to be you could walk into a lot of office buildings | freely, now pretty tight security in some downtown areas (ie, | public security option / service options are very poor and not | maintained). So we get elevator passes and lockouts, security | person downstairs, turnstiles, bathrooms all got doors with RFID | door locks. | newacct583 wrote: | This is sort of weirdly spun. In fact in Seattle we saw exactly | what happens when a bunch of local yahoos decide to try to | police themselves. How exactly do you think this is going to | turn out differently than the CHAZ/CHOP fiasco, except in the | clothing choices of the security people? | swearwolf wrote: | At least on the West Coast of the U.S. it seems to me like | there's been a big change over the past ten years or so in what | kinds of security events could happen in a given public space. | These days it feels like anything is possible. We've had | homeless people tailgate employees into the office building | where I work. One tried to move into the handicapped bathroom | stall. Another started grabbing things from people's desks in | an unoccupied area. After Portland began allowing overnight | camping on public property under the Safe Sleep program, a | small patch of land across from our office became a campsite | pretty quickly, as did the sidewalks on adjacent streets. Some | of the people who were camping there were pretty unstable, so | you never really knew what to expect. | | In that same period of time, also on the West Coast, we've seen | a shift towards a more lenient model of policing and | prosecuting. The idea is to not laden people who are already | struggling with homelessness, mental illness, drug addiction, | or all three with legal problems that arise from those | situations. It's a laudable effort, and a noble goal, but it | has meant that people who get arrested for something like auto | theft or burglary are quickly released. Sometimes you'll read | in the news about a person who's been arrested for a serious | crime like murder, and the article will mention dozens and | dozens of other arrests for things like burglary, assault or | theft. The police know this, so they often don't bother | following up on property crimes. | | That system as a whole can really make the major West Coast | cities feel pretty lawless sometimes, but people don't really | like to talk about it in social settings because it's hard to | talk about problems like that without being misconstrued as a | reactionary conservative. But if you get them taking one on | one, and they feel like they can trust you, the frustrations | come pouring out. So I'm not that surprised that there's a | company trying to capitalize on that sentiment, horrifying as | it is. I've been feeling for a while now that given the current | trajectory of things, a vigilante backlash was likely to become | inevitable. | zapita wrote: | > _Minneapolis is getting rid of police department entirely_ | | This is incorrect. The city council made a non-binding "pledge" | to dismantle the police department. But according to the New | York Times, the pledge _" has been rejected by the city's | mayor, a plurality of residents in recent public opinion polls, | and an increasing number of community groups. Taking its place | have been the types of incremental reforms that the city's | progressive politicians had denounced."_ [1] | | The ideas behind "defund the police" are simply not popular in | the US. A majority of Americans want a police department - but | they want a police department that protects everyone equally. | | [1] | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/26/us/politics/minneapolis-d... | throwkeep wrote: | Indeed, defunding the police means the poor will be even less | protected. The rich will always have their private security. | And now they'll have a larger/cheaper labor force, with ex- | police officers looking for a new job? | rlaabs wrote: | Community based policing, cops on neighborhood patrols, has | been on the decline for years. | | Police funding is now more often used to to acquire military | weapons/hardware. | | "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's | Police Forces" is a highly recommended study of this problem. | | https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization- | Ameri... | noofen wrote: | The "Rise of the Warrior Cop" seems directly correlated | with the rise of massive drug cartels. | ranma4703 wrote: | This presumes that the police ever protected the poor, when | the opposite is the case. | slownews45 wrote: | In that case this could end up being a win-win situation it | seems like. | | The poor get rid of the police in their neighborhoods and | the folks who want more policing get it? | | We've had a fair bit of retail closing as the police are | pulling back out of some areas. | Spooky23 wrote: | Poor people don't want to get rid of police, they want to | not be hassled by police. | | In the 90s when the NYPD started firing lazy/corrupt | police commanders and cracking down on street crime, | evicting families of drug dealers from public housing, | and putting down pit bulls.. poor communities were very | much in favor of what was happening. | | The tide shifted when the cops went all in on stupid | metrics. | mywittyname wrote: | Even for middle class people, the police are basically | there to file the paperwork you need to file insurance | claims. | | "Oh, somebody broke into your car and stole stuff? You | shouldn't leave things lying around. We'll never catch the | guy. Oh, you have video of the incident and know exactly | who it is? Yeah, we can't really do anything with this. Oh | you need to file a report for the insurance company? Fill | this out and check back with us next month." | | I'm very much NOT surprised that people who've actually | needed the police for something have decided to there needs | to be a private alternative. | [deleted] | pstuart wrote: | "defunding" is a loaded word and ripe for misinterpretation. | | The intent behind that movement is to take money spent on | policing where it fails and move it to where it might be more | effective. | | How many lawsuits are there for wrongful deaths where the | police showed up for a mental health crisis? Since funding is | finite and the police get a lion's share of it (community | wise), why not shift some of that money into personnel who | are better equipped to handle it? | slownews45 wrote: | It's going to be very interesting to watch the folks who | are replacing their police. I think Minneapolis is going to | be first. If they can make it work - fantastic! | | https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/12/minneapol | i... | soared wrote: | Denver has replaced some police with mental health | professionals and its been great so far. | https://www.npr.org/2021/03/08/974941422/6-month- | experiment-... | throwkeep wrote: | There is only one interpretation for defund, and anyone | saying otherwise is gaslighting or using Motte and Bailey. | President Obama wisely told progressives to stop saying it. | | Also, "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police": | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd- | abol... | sneak wrote: | > _My guess is that as police are defunded (Minneapolis is | getting rid of police department entirely) folks who can pay | and see a role for security will probably contract for it. In | the bay area this is already happening to a small degree._ | | I think in a lot of major metros, even funded police aren't | meeting people's needs. If we aren't getting what we're paying | for, we should stop paying. | throwkeep wrote: | > If we aren't getting what we're paying for, we should stop | paying. | | Would you apply that to government services generally, where | we're not getting what we pay for? | jdlshore wrote: | "We" in this case is public policy about how tax money is | spent, not individuals' tax payments. | | Given that: yes, we should absolutely stop funding services | where society isn't getting what it's paying for--or fix | them. | Buttons840 wrote: | I think a lot of people feel that way. | | Am I more likely to have a positive or negative interaction | with police? I honestly don't know, and I'm white in a nice | area. Crime is low and something like a burglary is extremely | unlikely. I think police may be providing an unseen benefit | to me by enforcing the law on others - I don't want vehicles | doing 50 mph on my residential street, maybe they would | without police? Or maybe they wouldn't? | | I'm not taking a side on this issue, but I do empathize with | those who believe they are unlikely to ever benefit from | police presence, and thus don't want to pay for police. | noofen wrote: | > I do empathize with those who believe they are unlikely | to ever benefit from police presence, and thus don't want | to pay for police. | | You're saying this like the majority these people have a | net-positive impact on tax revenue. It's quite the | opposite. | Spooky23 wrote: | Like all things, it's a complex issue. | | Personally, I think the underlying issue is a lack of | accountability. Address that, and many issues resolve | themselves. | chitowneats wrote: | Black Americans want to retain their current level of | police presence (or rather, that of the status quo ante). | This might be because in many cases they _are_ quite likely | be the victim of a burglary: | | https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans- | police-r... | | https://www.newsweek.com/denying-crime-wave-progressives- | are... | planet-and-halo wrote: | This is a major part of the problem in these debates. | People don't measure or argue from what they can't see. We | often imagine issues as scalars, when more often they are a | single knob on a complex machine, most of which is | invisible to even the best informed people. | sneak wrote: | If the videos online are any indicator, police do a lot | more than simply enforce the law: they regularly harass and | intimidate anyone behaving in ways that are nonstandard | (including simply existing while being a minority or poor) | even if no laws are being broken, and suffer no | consequences whatsoever for such illegal and often violent | conduct. | | This is presumably what some people want, but in general | the police as protectors of the status quo is, in my view, | a bad thing. The status quo sucks and changing it isn't | illegal--yet the cops in the US will treat you as it it | were. | | It's a bad and fiercely unamerican system. | nkassis wrote: | Reading a lot of the comment there seems to be a recency bias | towards complaining a more recent set of policies to change | police funding and ignoring the more long term problem that | police may not be meeting the people needs even with large | budgets. | | The issue might not be funding level but misuse as you point | out. | CerealFounder wrote: | Minneapolis is not getting rid of the police department as a | quick Google would happily show you. | | Its a fallacy to assume it is a failure of a public option when | it just as easily can be that we've been marketed that we are | vulnerable and unsafe. Almost all stats have TODAY being just | about the safest moment for violent crime in the history of | humanity. | | Dont confuse a change in peoples purchasing habits as a logical | response to something intrinsic. Its barely ever correlated. | | edit: I actually reread and saw you said "perceived value," I | agree with you, I just think its a tragedy people are so | scared. Although SF seems to be really having a problem. | lolbrels wrote: | Stretching the scope of violence over the entirety of human | history is not a good metric considering the mass death and | wars. | | Lowering the scope down to the past decade I would say an | entire year of BLM riots, mass looting, firebombing | courthouses, small business owners devastated...you catch my | drift. | | I'm not sure whether your comment was just naive or | intentionally misleading to downplay what has been happening | the past year or two. There is definitely a correlation | between that and increased security presence on site at many | locations. Especially when the police simply stood by in some | instances while looters had free reign over entire city | blocks gleefully snatching whatever they could. Disgusting. | Spooky23 wrote: | Most of this is perceived bullshit. As the gap between working | class and affluent people widens, you have a layer of | professionals with money looking for stuff to do. | | Those folks have a tendency to want to separate themselves from | the dirty masses. (Ie gated community) It's what you did after | you sell the family factory business in Ohio and move to | Florida or wherever. | | Building security theatre was accelerated driven by 9/11 | paranoia and federal standards. | xeromal wrote: | Security is absolutely necessary in down towns. In LA, it is | out of control. You can't even go inside a 711 without being | harassed until they hired guards. | courtf wrote: | These arbitrary checkpoints also generate a steady stream of | trivial "security incidents" just by existing, which for the | paranoid owners is taken as evidence for their necessity, and | they double down. | slices wrote: | Minneapolis is not getting rid of its police department. | | There may be one or more options on the ballot this fall to | make the department report to someone different, and/or to | remove the current minimum number of officers, but even those | are yet to be resolved. | throwaway15579 wrote: | I'm seeing the same thing in Seattle. Private security has | become MUCH more common all over the city in the past few | years. I even see apartment buildings hiring 24/7 private | security that patrols the building and the street around the | building as an amenity. | cupcake-unicorn wrote: | Has been the case in the mayor's hood for years: | https://laurelhurstcc.com/security/ | slownews45 wrote: | Overseas the end results if the police are totally defunded | or weak is that you tend to end up with really strong | differences / ghettos around places where there is and is not | security. | | It's like gated communities on steroids, but starts to | include office, mfg and other items like retail (which | totally leave places with no security). Can result in | shocking differences on both sides of the fence that usually | separates these areas. Ironically the police then tend to | follow along and provide better security to what are not | better areas (if they have any capacity). | tpmx wrote: | Overseas where? | z3ncyberpunk wrote: | Everywhere? Have you not looked outside? | throwaway15579 wrote: | This is how life is in basically every Central and South | American city, in my experience. | | As soon as a family has some relatively small amount of | wealth they will spend it on ultra-secure apartment | buildings, tall walls around their house, razor-wire | walls and fences, full coverage security cameras and | intruder detection, etc. | tpmx wrote: | I saw jarring signs of that when I visited Mexico City in | 2003 - I stayed with a business partner who lived in a | walled community guarded by private guards openly | carrying submachine guns. Can only imagine that the | security has been dialed up a few notches by now. | | (The source of my confusion: I interpreted "overseas" in | a quite literal way - I'm from Europe.) | medium_burrito wrote: | Did you visit one of the armored car dealerships in | Polanco? They are badass. | tpmx wrote: | I did not. I think random violent carjackings had just | started happening at scale. The guy who hosted me was | getting a bit worried. | medium_burrito wrote: | For the first time in my life I've seen private security in | my neighborhood. We're in one of the poorer areas of the city | (ie $1-2.5m houses), so perhaps people cannot afford to | leave? | | I've always thought security on demand was a great idea- the | real killer app in my mind is having a map online of which | houses the private security company protects, so as to create | an incentive for people who aren't paying to get protection | as the thieves know what's ripe for the picking. | chasd00 wrote: | how wold a private security company protect your house? If | they were there in the driveway 24x7 then maybe. Once your | house is robbed or being robbed if you have to call someone | it's already too late. | | i was a victim of a home invasion and maybe 10 years later | a violent crime. In both cases only after the real danger | was over did a call for help happen. | | In the home invasion it ended when the gunman was forcing | my roommate to the garage, my roommate opened the door, the | gunman walked out, he then slammed/locked the door behind | him and we hit the deck calling 911 | | In the second case i was jumped from behind and knocked | nearly unconscious before being robbed. It took me a full | 15min to get the brain fog cleared to even think what to do | next. | | i don't see how an app is going to offer any protection at | all. Maybe it speeds up reporting crime?? | Cyberdog wrote: | The same way that police ostensibly protect houses; by | being there, patrolling randomly, keeping an eye out for | things that don't look right. | C19is20 wrote: | >We're in one of the poorer areas of the city (ie $1-2.5m | houses | | Is that 'poorer' measured in actual USD $, or old Italian | lira or pesos or something? | | #wishiwaspoorthere. | neither_color wrote: | I have latin american heritage and that's pretty how much it | is in the old country for anyone who can afford it. I won't | be surprised if in a few years barbed wire and glass shard | fencing becomes more common. The sad thing is America is | doing this to itself very willfully through some obvious | policy failures while blaming abstract intangible forces like | "capitalism." | EvanAnderson wrote: | Edging closer to "Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong" and the "Central | Intelligence Corporation". | exhilaration wrote: | Yes! Snow Crash is exactly what came to my mind when I read | this article. | neither_color wrote: | Well they did remove "America" from their logo so it's a step | in that direction. | https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-14/the- | ci... | slickrick216 wrote: | It's great isn't it. I can't wait to pick out which name to | call my burbclave. Going to get a full gargoyle gear set. | danielodievich wrote: | Nice! I'd say these guys are going to be MetaCops and a soon | to be discovered competitor will try to be Enforcers. | soared wrote: | You're misunderstanding the phrase "defund police". This is | what it looks like in practice: | https://www.npr.org/2021/03/08/974941422/6-month-experiment-... | mycologos wrote: | There's a pretty wide spectrum of how people interpret | "defund x". US Republicans have agitated for "defund Planned | Parenthood" for a while, and by "defund" they meant "don't | give any tax dollars to it" [1]. In that context, it's not | really surprising that a big chunk of the population | "misunderstand[s]" the phrase. They may be inferring the | wrong context, but the word has definitely been used that | way. | | [1] https://www.ernst.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/1/erns | t-i... | seieste wrote: | This article talks about a program designed to fix the "root" | of crime and homelessness. Instead of arresting people, | they'd call social workers. "Success" was measured by how | many people were arrested and so the program "succeeded" | because they responded to 750 calls but didn't arrest anyone. | But is arrest really related to how well a program solves the | root of the problem? | | It seems like a better measure would be something related to | their actual goal. So why didn't they measure rate of | property crime? Rate of homelessness? Poverty? Drug | addiction? Supposedly these are the real causes of crime and | homelessness. | | If they did actually measure those things, I think their | evaluation of the program would be different [0] [1]. | | >> "Denver saw significant increases in most types of | property crime in 2020. In comparison to the average of the | previous four years, burglaries rose 23% in 2020, larceny | rose 9%, auto theft rose 61% and theft from cars rose 39%, | Denver police data shows." [0] | | [0] https://www.denverpost.com/2021/03/15/denver-property- | crime-... | | [1] https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/05/20/aurora-homeless- | campi... | remarkEon wrote: | And this is what it looks like _at scale_. | | https://outsidevoices.substack.com/p/mounting-violence- | casts... | smoldesu wrote: | This seems to me like it's setting a bad precedent. I totally | understand the motivation behind something like this, but | privatizing it and selling it to the highest bidder not only | raises ethical concerns, but also ones around how this service | will be used in the first place. According to citizen it seems | like these forces will respond to "disturbances", which are | incredibly vaguely worded. Do I need to be in danger to call | them? Or do I just need to be "disturbed"? | | It seems to me like this will be used by the upper-middle class | to pester their neighbors over minor annoyances, because they can | afford a Citizen subscription. Imagine the poor family across the | street, who gets visited by a black SUV and a group of burly | looking suited security guards, likely telling them something | vague about a "disturbance" that was reported. | shmatt wrote: | > visited by a black SUV and a group of burly looking suited | security guards | | Not very different than getting visited by a burly looking | neighbor. Except some people can look weaker, or be afraid to | approach their neighbor because their small stature | | When I had an upstairs neighbor having parties at all hours of | the night, I wished there was a service where a bigger / more | intimidating person would knock on their door and ask them to | cut it out, instead of small and fragile looking me | kelnos wrote: | > _I wished there was a service where a bigger / more | intimidating person would knock on their door and ask them to | cut it out, instead of small and fragile looking me_ | | That exists, and it's called the police. If your neighbor is | violating noise ordinances, they'll get ticketed. If they're | not, perhaps they're violating building rules, and can be | fined by the building management. If still not, then you | unfortunately just live in a shitty building, and hiring a | thug to harass your neighbor (regardless of how loud they're | being) sounds like a pretty disgusting (and legally risky) | thing to do. | TheSpiceIsLife wrote: | You're being down voted for this comment, and perhaps you | could have worded it differently, but the core of your | message seems completely reasonable: | | If you don't want to do something, you ask somebody else, if | you both agree to the terms and costs you have a deal. | | The world can be, how should I put this, _difficult_ a place. | | The contracted party might agree to not mention you. | Something like: hey, I live across the street, would you mind | letting me know if you're going to have music late at night | because I'll just stay at my partner's place that evening, | here's my number. No sweat, have a good night, here's a | complimentary six pack. | | It doesn't take a lot of imagination to assume the best | possible reading of a comment like yours. | | Have a lovely day. | gowld wrote: | Your solution is to flee your own home and pay the | perpetrator who is illegally disturbing the peace? | drusepth wrote: | I've had problems with my (large) upstairs neighbor for | the past year. The building repeatedly fined them, the | police refused to come out, and I knocked on their door | sometimes several times a day for about 9 months | straight. | | My solution was to offer to pay them $$$ for their moving | fees and, when they turned that down, I just picked up | and moved to another building. | | That's not really much different. | optimalsolver wrote: | Ok, and if your neighbor tells your security dude to get | lost, what happens then? | | (Assume everyone involved is armed) | industriousthou wrote: | You would call in a private security force to intimidate your | loud neighbors because you can't? I wonder how else that | security force might be used to enforce personal preferences. | majormajor wrote: | Did you talk to your neighbor ever? Or did you just dream of | intimidating them while fearing them without meeting them? | | (And you weren't afraid of potential fallout from escalating | things to intimidation either way? What if they hire a BIGGER | person to go knock on your door?) | tkzed49 wrote: | And what if I'm disturbed seeing you walk around the | neighborhood, and I call some big burly men to give you a | talk about it? Even if most people are reasonable, this just | invites the unreasonable people to power trip with private | security forces. | chasd00 wrote: | >I wished there was a service where a bigger / more | intimidating person would knock on their door and ask them to | cut it out | | heh that's a "hired goon". This whole discussion is like | standard issue organized crime and protection rackets but in | app form. Too funny. | bradj wrote: | This already happens in some places. For example, in Houston, | HOAs and other neighborhood management districts will contract | with Constables to have a dedicated deputy in their | neighborhood with a separate contact number. Others will | contract with armed private security to patrol their | neighborhoods as well. | | Also, this is how people use the police already. They call them | when they are annoyed with their neighbors, the infamous woman | in Central Park that was covered heavily in the news this year | comes to mind. | ffhhj wrote: | Imagine thieves calling different private forces to confront | "fake" security guards. Like that guy who asked construction | workers from craiglist to meet with him next to the bank, but | now with guns involved. | kelnos wrote: | > _Imagine the poor family across the street, who gets visited | by a black SUV and a group of burly looking suited security | guards, likely telling them something vague about a | "disturbance" that was reported._ | | In some ways I would honestly love to get my door buzzed by | these people so I could tell them to get off my property lest I | call the actual police to remove them. | | (But such is my privilege that I would likely be pretty safe | and unafraid in such an encounter.) | kaczordon wrote: | If rich people can hire private security why can't other people | have that ability as well? As evidenced from this years riot's | lots of businesses weren't protected by the police, I'm sure | plenty of people would have needed this. | ummonk wrote: | Yup. Private security has always been a thing. This is just | democratizing access to the middle class and upper middle | class. | swiley wrote: | I, for one, am very much looking forward to the n-gate write up | on this thread. | recursivedoubts wrote: | I am not a libertarian, but do I have many libertarian friends. | | I always wondered why they smirked quietly at calls to defund the | police... | DaiPlusPlus wrote: | This was the backstory in Robocop (1987), btw. | | Detroit was going broke so they privatised Detroit police, OCP | made the winning bid, then their plan was to replace expensive | human police with cheap-to-run Robot-cops. That's why the film | was satire /first/, Hollywood-action-film second. | | Unfortunately I don't think Paul Verhoven can save us from | this... | guerrilla wrote: | Two more fiction stories on the same subject: | | https://youtu.be/Eo2OQsPDwBI | | and | | https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d- | libertari... | verhoven_fan wrote: | I think verhoven has a particular sense of humor and while he | himself labels some of his movies satire I think he makes a | particular kind of low brow action movie first and foremost. | Its more "demolition man" than "a modest proposal". Labelling | the whole thing as a Satire and pretending to be above | Hollywood audiences is part of his sense of humor imo. | reedjosh wrote: | But in that case the government paid a single company for | protection. In the private market there will be competition | for security services. | asdff wrote: | Citizen is a dystopian app. It's like the worst elements of the | boston bombing reddit fiasco packaged into a for profit | application. The CEO offered a $30k bounty for a random homeless | person just a few days ago: | | https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/21/22447446/citizen-app-inte... | andrewzah wrote: | Looks like they explicitly plan on incorporating bounties into | the app itself. | | My prediction is someone will go all viligante and | beat/maim/kill someone, probably who is innocent. Then the app | will get pulled. | SV_BubbleTime wrote: | Westworld has taken a huge downturn (hey, people like the sex | and killing of robots that don't know they're robots in a | Wild West theme park... let's remove that entirely from our | show!)... but this is entirely a central plot device in that | show. | | An app where people accept contracts for quick cash. It's | supposed to be a dystopian element of their society, not a | blueprint. | antonvs wrote: | There seems to be no dystopian fantasy so bad that someone | doesn't take it as a blueprint. A kind of Poe's Law for | dystopias. | Judgmentality wrote: | > My prediction is someone will go all viligante and | beat/maim/kill someone, probably who is innocent. Then the | app will get pulled. | | I think it's more likely the first time this happens the | person is actually guilty, and there will be a _huge_ debate | as to whether or not it 's a good thing. | CoolGuySteve wrote: | I thought the Rico app in Westworld season 3 was kind of | silly but I guess not now that it has an upcoming release | date. | Paradigma11 wrote: | And the huge debate will suddenly stop when an innocent | person is killed and everybody will always have been dead | set against it. | abfan1127 wrote: | queue the "if we save only 1 child, its worth it" theme | music as well. | skeeter2020 wrote: | ah yes, won't anyone think of the children? | cratermoon wrote: | And then it will come out that the vigilante has a sketchy, | checkered past, possibly including jail time. | 14 wrote: | Jail time is not an indicator of a bad person. The US | likes to lock up people for the crime of being poor. | cratermoon wrote: | That's correct. Notice, however, that I mentioned the | actual crimes first, and added "jail time" as an | afterthought. There are plenty of criminals who commit | real crimes and don't get jail time, or even much | punishment. See e.g. Brock Turner, Shane M. Piche, Zoe | Reardon, George Zimmerman, Isaac Turnbaugh, etc. | vanshg wrote: | But what if they don't? | hanniabu wrote: | Then they'll scramble to find anything they can to | slander the person, such as a parking ticket | lapetitejort wrote: | Don't forget about naughty pictures such as the subject | holding mind-altering drugs such as coffee or alcohol. | tmh88j wrote: | >My prediction is someone will go all viligante and | beat/maim/kill someone, probably who is innocent. Then the | app will get pulled. | | That's always been their intention. Well, not to kill anyone, | but to track people down. The app was originally called | vigilante and Apple pulled it from the app store, so they | rebranded and now we have Citizen. Maybe Apple will do it | again before anything even worse happens than the recent $30k | bounty on an innocent person. | cgb223 wrote: | Never expected to see "Bounty Hunters as a Service" (BHaaS) | become a viable tech business model... | folli wrote: | I actually don't understand their business model. $20 per | month will in no way cover the cost to send security guards | your way, or maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. | gnicholas wrote: | It sounds like the current $20 offering is to have a | remote employee monitoring you when you walk home alone, | or the like. The contemplated new service, Protect, is | not currently available to the public, and there's | nothing indicating it would be $20/mo. | | My guess is there will be tiers based on anticipated | usage, like AAA. Want X number of monthly reports? That | costs $Y. If you want 2X the reports and expedited | response time, it costs $2Y. | cutemonster wrote: | People paying for getting really intrusively surveiled? | walleeee wrote: | A friend startup-pitched exactly this idea to me 6 years | ago, something about it must run really deep in the | cultural subconscious | trhway wrote: | >$20 per month will in no way cover the cost to send | security guards your way | | it will more than cover a drone. Especially AI based one | instead of being remotely controlled. You can imagine | that they can park a lot of drones around the city so the | reaction time will be in seconds. While real people | sometimes [think that they] have to use deadly force to | protect themselves, a drone has no-self-preservation | concerns (i hope it will be that way at least for some | near future :) and thus can just blanketly use a lot of | non-deadly force - acoustic, electric shock, 96GHz beamed | power, etc. | | You're going for a walk late at night - just a click in | the app would get you a drone or a robot dog to accompany | you for a walk. The drone or the dog is already imprinted | with your voice from the app for the duration of the | walk, so you can command it at any moment. | gtirloni wrote: | I'd rather move to a safer place. | trhway wrote: | you underestimate the power of marketing and societal | mass self-delusion :) Just look around - there is no | children and Ring cameras everywhere. 30 years ago the | children were playing outside unsupervised. | swiley wrote: | Kind of awesome that Apple hasn't pulled an app that is | literally used for committing violence against innocent people | but anything pornographic gets banned pretty fast. | Applejinx wrote: | Very 'Western Civilization'. Murdering is waaaaay more | societally acceptable than the sexxors. | thereare5lights wrote: | It's uniquely American. Most of Western Civilization is not | like this. We're like this because this country was full of | puritans and other religious people at the founding. | smogcutter wrote: | What's uniquely American is thinking that our history of | religious Puritanism is somehow uniquely American. | thereare5lights wrote: | Name one other Western Civilization country that has the | same kind of attitude towards sex. | Swenrekcah wrote: | The world is bigger than Western countries. | | Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other countries come to mind | along with the USA when I think of religious puritanism. | exporectomy wrote: | Australia and the UK have porn filters on their internet. | Australia also has weirdly strict child porn law that can | turn an innocent recording from broadcast TV into illegal | porn by simple editing. Simpsons porn is illegal too, | despite the characters having the wrong number of fingers | to be human. | s1artibartfast wrote: | Who commuted violence? | mkmk wrote: | In NYC at least, most crime reports in the app also come with | comment sections full of overt racism. | Nav_Panel wrote: | The one thing I do like about it is knowing why random | helicopters are flying above my apartment (in NYC) at various | times of day. Like this past Wednesday, around 6 AM. | Helicopters hovered overhead keeping me up for an hour. Turns | out there was a huge fire a few blocks down. I wouldn't have | known otherwise. | neither_color wrote: | It happens in the DC area too. We get a mix of civilian and | military helicopters at random times every day, the military | ones annoy me the most because they often make the windows | shake. | akudha wrote: | Shouldn't this be the responsibility of police? How hard | would it be for the precinct that sent the chopper to also | take a minute to update their website (if they have one) or | send out a tweet? "Working on putting out a fire on E 71st" | ... | drusepth wrote: | Ideally yes, but is it a hard-enough responsibility to | mandate? If not, it seems like there is a financial | opportunity for a company to fill that request. Especially | in the case of time-sensitive emergencies, it seems like | "informing the public as things happen" isn't the number | one priority. | | CIP: Living in downtown Portland, I have way better luck | searching recent "#portlandprotests" tweets than I do | checking the PPB Twitter feed. The latter usually shows up | within 24 hours, but doesn't really solve the immediate | curiosity of "why is there a helicopter hovering above my | house right now". | s1artibartfast wrote: | I look forward to using it during Cali fire season | ncr100 wrote: | Could also be used to organize a revolutionary movement to | overthrow a local government. | cutemonster wrote: | Storming the Congress | edoceo wrote: | Pinkerton, rebranded. | devwastaken wrote: | This is exactly how gangs and mob enforcement happens. | Organization of people whom are more than willing to create their | own physical enforcement outside of the restrictions of the law | go out and "protect" for money. And then organize to become both | the perpetrator and the defender. | | Private citizens are not under the same legal scrutiny officers | are - evidence obtained in violation of the constitution cannot | be admitted in court if an officer is the one that does it. But | if a private citizens does it can be acceptable. | | If people want rule of law, and not rule of force, then they | should become officers not 'security force'. But I have a feeling | that the reason they want to be 'securoty force' is to avoid the | responsibility. | na85 wrote: | >If people want rule of law, and not rule of force, then they | should become officers not 'security force'. But I have a | feeling that the reason they want to be 'securoty force' is to | avoid the responsibility. | | The implication here is that police officers stay within the | bounds of the law, and yet a cursory google search will reveal | that (at least in the US and Canada) the police are entirely | corrupt forces of legally-sanctioned mob violence who flout the | law at will without fear of repercussions or consequences. | | If there's a high-blood pressure situation and whether I call | 911 or if I were to start using Citizen, I have about the same | level of confidence that extralegal brutality will occur. | deugo wrote: | The neighborhood watch is often staffed by amateurs. Security | forces are trained professionals. If a neighborhood watch is | necessary, then an on-demand security force seems better. | | What would you think happens if you abuse this service to call | security on your poor neighbors? They keep showing up? I don't | think so. I do think the neighborhood watch could take it | personally. | | Security force is a perfectly respectable and responsible job, | and many ex-police and ex-military use their skill set to get | into this field. | | If officers always showed up, and always showed up on time, | then you would not need private citizens. Rule of law is for | the government to control. Citizens just want their parents to | feel safe, and be able to call security to drive through their | street, when they suspect gang/drug activity. | whydoyoucare wrote: | I agree with your opinion. I consider "Citizen" filling a | usefull role of protection for those who can afford it. | As/when they start becoming problematic, we will figure out | how to deal with it. Until then, we have to go by the service | they claim to offer in good faith. | | I want my family to feel safe. It is my responsibility to do | everything in my capacity as a law-abiding citizen to ensure | their safety. | gowld wrote: | This comment applies perfectly aptly to Jim Crow. | aaron-santos wrote: | Citizen shareholders should see a massive opportunity in a | "Protect" product offering which cuts down on neighbors | spuriously using the service against other customers. The | addition of protection money to the revenue stream would | benefit them greatly. | edoceo wrote: | Joke right? Cause what you suggest is straight the fsck | old-school gangster. | aaron-santos wrote: | That some people are unsure should be telling. | newacct583 wrote: | This is a horrifying equivalence. A "neighborhood watch" is | at best a surveillance and reporting organization. It's | literally right there in the name. "Neighborhood watches" | don't go around making armed attempts to intervene in crime, | and to the extent they do (c.f. the killing of Ahmaud Arbery) | it's exactly as disastrous as the dystopia we're discussing | with respect to "security forces", and for the same reasons. | deugo wrote: | I do not equate them. I value unbiased professionals over | amateurs "protecting their turf". | | If there are crimes happening which require armed | intervention, that is exactly a reason for having a | professional security force. If the police does not show | for such a crime, but you need to rely on security force, | well good luck to you, and glad you have a backup on dial. | | A security force is also going to cooperate with the police | and perform surveillance. Not like they pull up in an | armored van and exit with weapons drawn, because a neighbor | called them for an illegal lemonade stand. | | I don't think the killing of Ahmaud Arbery was by a | neighborhood watch. Professionals would probably not have | let it come that far. Same with Trayvon Martin: if a | professional force had responded calmly, he may have been | alive. So if a neighborhood watch is necessary (either for | the feeling of protection or actual crime fighting) then a | professional force would seem a lot better. | newacct583 wrote: | This is just stunningly naive, sorry. You're imagining a | bunch of noble professionals, but in practice in history | when you give a bunch of people weapons and tell them to | police their neighborhoods, and ESPECIALLY when you make | them accountable only locally (to the people paying them, | in this case) and not to society in general... | | You get gangs. That's how gangs form. Organized crime, | almost everywhere, has its roots in this kind of "local | security" of an underserved disadvantaged population. | People who can't rely on the police for order end up | under the thumb of whoever can provide stability. | | Now, OK, sure. I get that you're thinking that somehow | this startup has found a growth hack to disrupt this | millenia-old industry and do it better than the Mafia. | Well... maybe. Or maybe it's just another gang. | deugo wrote: | If a gang in my street, they better be on my payroll. And | I expect them to provide stability better than the Mafia | ever can. But if you say my payment of a private security | force directly leads to the formation of criminal gangs, | and I am still in an underserved population, maybe I can | better pay the Mafia, to avoid the creation of new gangs? | That sounds naive. | kelnos wrote: | > _A security force is also going to cooperate with the | police and perform surveillance. Not like they pull up in | an armored van and exit with weapons drawn, because a | neighbor called them for an illegal lemonade stand._ | | I am curious as to why you believe that this scenario | isn't exactly what would happen. Because I think | eventually this is... exactly what would happen. | deugo wrote: | Security forces are professionals, and professionals at | dealing with such situations. They'd be very bad at their | job if they armed intervened in non-violent or non- | pressing crimes. It is like expecting your Uber driver to | take a short-cut over a pedestrian lane: maybe they | arrive a tiny bit earlier to the one that paid them, but | now they lose their license. | | If I do imagine this would happen, assume it would be | true, then just to be clear: I do not agree with armed | interventions to shut down these illegal lemonade stands, | and I wished the marketing in the leaked e-mails would | have made it clear, that armed interventions of all | crime, is what this service is meant for. | drusepth wrote: | Private security has been around for what... hundreds, | thousands of years? | | It hasn't devolved into pulling up in an armored van and | exiting with weapons drawn yet. Why would yet another | company among thousands (millions?) entering the field | change that? | ummonk wrote: | Private citizens don't have qualified immunity though. | yunesj wrote: | > Private citizens are not under the same legal scrutiny | officers are | | Government police have qualified immunity and are not subject | to market oversight. As you might expect, this fundamental lack | of accountability results in abuses, particularly of | minorities, historically and presently. | | I'm much less concerned about the Starbucks security guards | becoming a gang. Unlike government police, as soon as they | start bashing gay people or colored people, I can stop | supporting them. | gowld wrote: | When they come to bash your head in, it doesn't help if you | "stop supporting them" . | eikenberry wrote: | Is being able to do something is better than being able to | do nothing? You're saying it isn't. | hannasanarion wrote: | hoping that maybe enough people hear about your case and | are motivated by it enough to change their spending | habits even in the face of monopoly and violent threats | isn't exactly "being able to do something" as a | vigilante's bullet passes through your skull. | kibwen wrote: | _As your skull is stoved in, you smile to yourself, | euphoric in the knowledge that the market will eventually | reach an equilbrium._ | barbecue_sauce wrote: | But what about when entire municipal police forces are | privatized? | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _they should become officers not 'security force'_ | | Given the moral bankruptcy of America's police force (note: | force, not every officer), I could certainly see someone | preferring private security handle their interests over the | police. | | If crime were less prevalent and the police more trusted, such | a service wouldn't have a niche to exist in. | | I don't like this slide into vigilante justice. But fighting | the symptoms of the underlying problem is the wrong approach. | notyourday wrote: | > This is exactly how gangs and mob enforcement happens. | Organization of people whom are more than willing to create | their own physical enforcement outside of the restrictions of | the law go out and "protect" for money. And then organize to | become both the perpetrator and the defender. | | When the law decides it is not interested in protecting the | citizens you bet this is going to happen. | | My block has been invaded by the drug dealers as of last | summer. Not 1. Not 2. But between a dozen and two dozen at a | time. They are selling drugs openly on a street so brazen that | the people who live here have to walk _through_ the drug deals | being done on a sidewalk to get to their apartments. Apartments | with rents ranging from $1900 to $6000 a month. Cops don 't do | anything because the city management frowns upon it. We had | five shootings over the past 12 months. If there was a way for | us to pay for our own thugs to ensure the drug dealers moved to | a different block $200-$500/mo per apartment I'm absolutely | sure everyone who lives around here would sign up for it. | gowld wrote: | "moved to a different block" is your solution? | notyourday wrote: | We do not care to solve it as a general problem. The city | employs NYPD for that, at least in theory. | | We, people who live on this block, want them gone from this | block. | irrational wrote: | I can't believe you are writing this not in jest. Just a week | or two ago we saw a video of an officer planting evidence in | broad daylight. He was caught because of the video, how many | officers have not been caught? What about yesterday when the | police office ran up and kicked a handcuffed man in the head? | Was that the rule of law or the rule of force? | Angostura wrote: | How much better do you think vigilante forces would be? | IG_Semmelweiss wrote: | I dont think it matters. | | What matters is that people are voting with their wallets. | | People need a solution to rampant crime. Take for example | SA, where private security forces are widespread. | | The degree of deleriction of duty by public servants has | been tremendous in the last 2 years. The NYC Major recently | was on the record stating that "there is no security | problem in NYC" meanwhile official City hall communication | channels have implemented a buddy system where city hall | employees can home in groups [1] | | If public servants can't provide security for people, there | should not be a surprise that the private servicers would | emerge. | | [1]https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nyc-city-hall- | employee... | ceejayoz wrote: | > People need a solution to rampant crime. Take for | example SA, where private security forces are widespread. | | Has that solved crime in SA? | kibwen wrote: | Law enforcement does not solve the sort of low-level | citizen-brigade crime that this app would address, it | only treats the symptoms. The cause is people driven to | desperation; put money into social programs to address | the root of their desperation. | courtf wrote: | Prevention is cheaper and results in a friendlier | environment for everyone. The proliferation of expensive, | reactive solutions that tend to aggravate the very | problem they're ostensibly working on is great for | shareholders though. Public health is boring by | comparison, and no one gets rich when it works. | 323454 wrote: | This is a false dichotomy, but what's worse is that | social programs are already heavily funded in all the | major West coast cities. For example, LA spends over half | a billion dollars (yes, billion with a B) on services for | the homeless every year, to very little effect. It's not | irrational for someone (even someone who advocates for | those very programs and services) to look at the full | situation and conclude that the best available option is | to just throw in the towel and hire private security. | kibwen wrote: | _> look at the full situation and conclude that the best | available option is to just throw in the towel and hire | private security_ | | Someone who is looking at the full situation would | realize that hiring private security does not cause the | homeless population to suddenly evaporate. An outsider | might start to get the impression that the fundamental | right of the upper-middle class is the right not to be | reminded that people in poverty exist. | kelnos wrote: | > _Take for example SA, where private security forces are | widespread._ | | I don't think we want to use as a model a place where | police services are only available to the wealthy. | gowld wrote: | That's not what happening here. The money is for the | "true crime" entertainment and the fun of being part of a | mob, not crime reduction. That's obvious from the | substance and tone of the content published in the app. | joemi wrote: | What makes you think a private force will be under more | scrutiny? | Cyberdog wrote: | Because they will be more directly accountable to their | "clients," for one. I cannot fire a "real" cop whose | behavior I do not approve of. | avs733 wrote: | the problem is that it is not in jest. It is accurate and | reviews both how weak societal oversight of police is and how | important it is. | | Officers are under scrutiny. Sometimes it works, sometimes it | doesn't, sometimes (not often enough for me) when that | scrutiny fails changes happen. | | What is the oversight process, and the public input on that | oversight, for Citizen? | | Your example is an argument specifically for not letting go | of that scrutiny, and significantly increasing that scrutiny. | It, to some, is an argument of why existing state sponsored | efforts at law enforcement simply need to be rebooted | entirely - because they operate with scrutiny more akin to a | private corporation already. | ben_w wrote: | Rule of force. | | But for all of the highly visible things wrong with certain | police forces, they do at least _theoretically_ have | carefully considered constraints and a duty to the public | rather than just their subscribers. | creatorbytes wrote: | This is partly confirmation bias. Millions of officers, we're | gonna have bad ones. Obviously we need to improve, but to | think that officers who have at least some amount of vetting | are going to do worse than a security force is utter denial | of the human condition. | | Look at South Africa, they have security forces. Or look at | India, they too have a police force. But in South Africa, | their security force is only available for the wealthy, while | in India, they're actually corrupt police are paid off daily. | You don't want to leave your house without cash to bribe a | cop. And if you don't, you get beat. | | I'd rather be in the US with their policing than have a | citizens army of security, or almost any police force. | MengerSponge wrote: | Yes, we're gonna have bad officers. What happens next? Are | they shunned? Forced out of the profession? | | This isn't some abstract hypothetical. We have generations | of police who "washed out" of training because they weren't | bad enough. It's important to have an accurate diagnosis | when proposing a course of treatment. | | https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture- | features/racism... | croutonwagon wrote: | It is.. But at the same time, its a completely | decentralized system and there are MANY that do a very | good job at washing out the bad ones. There are plenty | that deserve criticism, and even federal | investigation/intervention. But by and large the system | works. | | There are millions of police, and hundreds of millions of | encounters daily across a huge range of investigations | and issues. boiling it down to twitter levels of context | is bad and applying such broad strokes is also equally | bad. Its certainly not going to encourage good ones to | sign up. | | I know with the way this type of stuff is being | portrayed, its a no win for most police, they could | quadruple the salaries overnight and some would still | balk, because no matter what it a loss. | irrational wrote: | This isn't confirmation bias. This is just the recent ones | that came immediately to mind. New stories come out daily. | | https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ | antonvs wrote: | There are around 700,000 police officers in the US. If | one of them is caught doing something bad every day, | that's 0.00014%. | | US police in general have a lot of issues and need to | improve dramatically, but the stories about cases of bad | behavior are not representative samples, even if you | factor in the amount of bad behavior that goes | undiscovered. | asdff wrote: | That's sort of a biased source you link. It lists deaths, | but often times these deaths come as a result of someone | threatening a cop with a deadly weapon. There's been like | two dozen shootings from the LAPD so far this year, and | most were due to someone charging an armed cop with a | knife or a similar suicidal incident. I think just | looking at use of force without context will give you a | pretty biased view. Certainly it's been overused, but a | lot of times, especially with the mental health crisis | going on where people who are insane and a danger to | others are allowed to refuse treatment, it is justified | when another life is at stake. | squeaky-clean wrote: | > It lists deaths, but often times these deaths come as a | result of someone threatening a cop with a deadly weapon. | | Other countries also have people who threaten cops with | deadly weapons, and their numbers are far far lower. | Hell, suicide-by-cop is a very real and common thing here | in the USA. | asdff wrote: | Once again, you mention nothing about the rate or all the | latent variables at play here. For example, other first | world countries generally have stronger social safety | nets, which means mentally ill people and aged out foster | youth in those places are less likely to end up on the | street in the first place compared to the U.S. We also | have an issue at least in CA where jails are at capacity, | and people are being turned out when they would have been | held for bail, and often go on to commit more crimes | while waiting to be charged for the first one. | BoorishBears wrote: | > someone charging an armed cop with a knife or a similar | suicidal incident | | It's weird reading that when I was a kid I was constantly | told cops are heroes because they put their lives on the | line where most wouldn't or couldn't. Like I'm an | untrained bumpkin, unfortunately if someone had a knife | and I had a gun, I can't really think of much more than | shooting them. | | But somewhere along the line the standard for police | dropped down to the standard for me? The untrained | bumpkin? | | Since pretty much every time I hear cop by suicide it's | apparent, and people still say "well what would *you* do" | like that's the smoking gun... | | - | | It even extends to more casual cases, the other day there | was a video of a lady mooning an officer. The thing is | the lady was clearly let go before that fairly stupid | act, and last I checked mooning someone doesn't imply | you've suddenly become a lethal threat.. but the cop was | just _so out of shape_ that shortly after realizing they | couldn 't keep up with this not very fast person they | ended up tasering this person on asphalt. | | A fully grown adult out cold at running pace straight | into asphalt because a cop is so out of shape they can't | chase a person who mooned them | | That's not the picture I grew up with... | | - | | I honestly don't have a problem with that though! I don't | think we have to force people to gamble their lives for | others. There's a certain sense of, "if I can't do it, I | can't make someone else do it". | | But if that's the case then we need to drop a lot of the | pretence to traditional policing cops have right now. | | Like the pay and pensions are all based around the | hazard, but it's safer than being a cab driver. Maybe | because now fearing for your life is an out to kill | people reaching for wallets. | | And a lot of interactions they have with people, like | speed enforcement should probably be dropped, if we're | just admitting lethal force has moved up a few notches. | | And maybe they need to have attachments with them for | certain calls. If someone is showing signs of mental | instability, someone experienced with dealing with that | vs applying lethal force should be directly involved. | makomk wrote: | The fact that cops are trained is precisely why they | shoot people who try and charge them or others with | knives. The correct first-line strategy for dealing with | a knife attack is _not allowing the attacker to close | enough distance with you to use the knife_ , because once | they do, regardless of how well trained you are how | untrained they are there's still a high chance you'll end | up seriously injured or dead. It's that imminent danger | that justifies the use of deadly force. As I understand | it, every self defence course worth its salt teaches this | - even the ones focused on bare-handed fighting. Any | tactics for dealing with attackers who do close that gap | are just a high-risk last resort for situations where | that fails. | BoorishBears wrote: | This is missing the forest for the trees so badly it | hurts. | | Why do you think I said I'd be forced to shoot? Because | even without training common sense tells you "not | allowing the attacker to close enough distance with you | to use the knife" is a pretty good course of action | | By your logic _the moment_ a person calls 911, the people | who are supposed to help, the person has been sentenced | to death. Think about that for a second. | | 1. The cops will arrive | | 2. "avoid knife getting close to me" | | 3. Less than lethal is not reliable, hell even lethal | force isn't instant, I feared for my life, they're shot | very dead. | | - | | It's not an easy problem, but how is that ok? There's not | many ways to fix it other than trying something other | than lethal force. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G06mi2hVg8 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgdhxLPJBgQ | | Like the stuff in those videos is not easy, I'm not | trying to pretend I could do it, or most people could. It | requires cops being able to put the most efficient | response for self-preservation behind trying to save | someone, which again, I'm not saying we require of | anyone... | | But let's call a spade a spade at that point. That's not | the concept of policing I see paraded. That's not the | "thin blue line", it sounds more like a cell of civilians | that are deployed to bad situations where they then | "apply self-defense"... | Dma54rhs wrote: | Have you ever thought about becoming a police officer to | be the change you want to have? History shows that is how | things change. | BoorishBears wrote: | Thanks for making my point that the standard for officers | is now people who are too scared to put the public before | themselves... which is pretty much all of us. | | > Like the stuff in those videos is not easy, I'm not | trying to pretend I could do it, or most people could. | | I'm not a police officer because I'm not brave enough. | I'd fear for my life, and I shoot. So instead of putting | myself in a profession that should ideally require more | of me, I don't. | | Not rocket science. | na85 wrote: | >Millions of officers, we're gonna have bad ones. | | What are the purported good officers doing about it and why | aren't they getting any results? | rorykoehler wrote: | Just a few bad apples? The fact that they feel comfortable | doing stuff like the head kicking shows there is a | organisational cultural issue in the police. If the | citizens didn't film it they'd be on their merry way and | not a word would be said. | [deleted] | shkkmo wrote: | Cops have legal protections that let them get away with | murder when nobody else would. | | Some might see that as a downside when selecting who you | want providing your security. | | Instead of comlaining about private security forces, why | not fix policing in this country so that it actually makes | people feel safer? | tisFine wrote: | Police forces have protections as extension of the state, | it was decided they're necessary to keep the state from | being stuck on a catch-22. | | The state can't bring criminal charges if the violation | was due to performing work for the state. | | It's legal to sue government agents as private citizens | for violation of rights. | eikenberry wrote: | Considering some states have already removed this | immunity and others are considering it, I don't think it | is required. That is to say that the state can and does | bring charges for violations done while performing work | for the state. | tisFine wrote: | That's fair. I should say instead the historical basis | for such protections is rooted in logic similar to what I | wrote. | watwut wrote: | The people who pay got vigilante private security don't | do it to avoid police planting evidence in them. | | They do it to have someome to attack the others, someone | under their control. They have zero incentive to prevent | private security from planting evidence on others. | | Gangs in fact did not ended up to be fair non corrupt | equivalent of police either. | shkkmo wrote: | I'm much less concerned with them planting evidence on me | than I am with them shooting a friend or family member | who is experiencing a mental health crisis. | watwut wrote: | That is the same category. People who will call private | security in your friend or family don't mind violence | that much. | | And in case you are the one calling, you don't need | private security as much as private mental health | professional. Because that knowledge and exlerience of | mental health crisis comes with being mental health | professional - not with security. | plorkyeran wrote: | Or shooting my dog just because it's there. | kelnos wrote: | Yes, and just imagine how bad the situation will be when the | police is privatized and accountable only to their | shareholders. | | The current situation is not good, but I have hope that in | the past year we've hit a turning point where we'll actually | start seeing some improvements (they will be slow and | incomplete improvements, but they will be progress in the | right direction). | | Privatized police, on the other hand, is about as dystopian | as it gets. | Cyberdog wrote: | Private security forces are accountable to their customers | before their shareholders. If I don't like how my private | security company is behaving, I can cancel my contract and | switch to another company. When enough contracts are | cancelled, _then_ these hypothetical shareholders get | involved. | | If I could cancel the "contract" with my local law | enforcement agencies, I would have done that a long, long | time ago. | azernik wrote: | When private citizens are allowed to do it (see e.g. Stand | Your Ground states, Trayvon Martin, &c) it's also bad. Only | without body cams, without even the possibility of | institutional reform. | eikenberry wrote: | Cops are private citizens. | azernik wrote: | Not when they're on the clock. | | Not for the purposes of the law, nor their employment. | The state has much more power in how to bring them into | line than it does for private citizens (it just chooses | not to use that power in the US). | deugo wrote: | I agree about these violent lawless police forces, but those | crime victims are not exactly innocent either. Most (violent) | crime is done out of sheer desperation, and the root cause of | this desperation can often be traced back to the | (predominantly white) upper-middle class, flaunting their | riches, and becoming increasingly hard targets, isolating | themselves from the "unwashed masses" in their ivory towers. | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | Is there some background information you're referring to? | Assault makes up the vast majority of violent crimes, so | it's hard to see what it could mean for them to be done | "out of sheer desperation". I can see how a desperate | person might feel shoplifting or burglary are their only | choice to survive, but how could they expect to benefit | from punching random people? | ummonk wrote: | Everyone is a victim of crimes, not just upper-middle-class | white folks. In fact, the UMC folks are the ones who can | afford to just write off the losses caused by property | crimes, and are less susceptible to fall victim to the | worst crimes, like murder. | jl2718 wrote: | I don't follow these things at all, but it seems we may be in | a bit of a bad romance with authority figures. These total | strangers act in perfectly predictable ways given the | positions we've handed them, and we call it betrayal. | narrator wrote: | I doubt that will ever happen in America. America is way too | organized and professional of a government to ever let things | get that out of hand. | | This sort of thing happens a lot in Latin America though. One | situation sort of like what you're describing is Columbia in | the 90s. The cartels throughly corrupted the government, so | vigilante groups like Los Pepes[1] formed to attack the | cartels, though they may have mostly just been fronts for other | cartels. Los Pepes alumni went to form AUC, which was the semi- | government endorsed death squad in Columbia at the time and | became its own narcotrafficking syndicate over time[2]. AUC was | eventually shut down and the leaders arrested for atrocities. | | The main left-wing guerrilla movement (FARC) also eventually | shut down its military activities[3]. The huge economic | disaster of Venezuela right next door might have weakened the | appeal of left-wing revolution. I've heard that Columbia is a | pretty nice place to visit these days where in the 90s it was | one of the most dangerous countries on earth. | | [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Pepes | | [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Self- | Defense_Forces_of_... | | [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_ | ... | eric_h wrote: | My dad did some consulting work in Colombia in the 90s and he | was provided with armed drivers and they took different | routes between the plant and the hotel every day. | [deleted] | subpixel wrote: | > I doubt that will ever happen in America. America is way | too organized and professional of a government to ever let | things get that out of hand. | | This seems written from the perspective of someone who has | just come back from a six month vacation during which they | had no access to news. | | > I've heard that Columbia is a pretty nice place to visit | these days | | There is literally a country-wide revolt taking place in | Colombia (correct spelling) at the moment, with some of the | worst police violence the country has experienced in years. | ChoGGi wrote: | There's a pretty entertaining (though stomach churning) | documentary called "Orozco el embalsamador"about an embalmer | working in Columbia. | | https://imdb.com/title/tt0982908/ | jjt-yn_t wrote: | It is spelled Colombia as the next poster shows. | iforgetti wrote: | I wonder what Citizen would do if someone activated the "protect" | application during a wrongful use of force incident by police? | kibwen wrote: | If the combination Uber/Lyft moonlighters are any indication, | you'd just make the officer's phone buzz in their pocket. | harlanji wrote: | I'm homeless in SF and have had the feeling that something like | this exists for about a year. Used to be in big tech, might've | pissed people off with my mouth. I draw diagrams of how | electronic harassment sustems could be implemented on my IG. | Living in public isn't scary on its own (1,085 nights), but apps | like this are. | deugo wrote: | I can't afford a private chauffeur, but I can afford an Uber | Black. | | I can't afford a private security force, but I could afford an | on-demand subscription. | | You want to defund the tax-paid police? Go right ahead! Now I | want to collectively fund my own security force, for crimes that | the police is understaffed for, what _exactly_ is the problem? | | If your concerns about police abuse or neighbors calling security | on minorities, then focus on fixing that (defund them?) and let | me interact with the private market. Or is this controversial | from a rich-get-security perspective? | EMM_386 wrote: | So in this dystopian future you require money in order to get | security protection? | | > I can't afford a private security force, but I could afford | an on-demand subscription. | | And if you run into hard times in life and can not afford this | subscription? Are we going to have "levels" of policing | depending on which company you are subscribed to and the higher | cost ones offer "better" policing? | | The "defund the police" movement will never be successful in a | way that dismantles law enforcement. We'd have a lot more | problems at that point than being forced to deal with for- | profit security companies. | deugo wrote: | To me, your argument amounts to: you are rich enough to | afford something, but poor people are not, so buying | something unaffordable to the poor is a bad thing to do. | | If anything, if 50% of the neighborhood has this | subscription, and you are too poor to afford it, you can | freeload on the enhanced security. | | I do agree it is dystopian to require money for basic | protection, and that this would not be collectively provided | with tax money. Less if the protection is just enhanced | (compare basic healthcare vs. being able to afford a private | clinic). | | If it was possible, I'd like to pay more taxes, then vote | (could be democratic, not scaled to amount paid) on where it | goes. If the neighborhoods really are problematic, then maybe | the local government could hire on-demand security forces for | when their police capacity is low (and hold them accountable | and to government standards). | kelnos wrote: | > _you are rich enough to afford something, but poor people | are not, so buying something unaffordable to the poor is a | bad thing to do._ | | For luxuries, I agree that would be a ridiculous point to | make (a poor person can't afford a new BMW, but we as a | society think that's ok). But stratification among basic | services that everyone should have is the opposite of | equitable. This is in part why American health care is so | awful if you're poor, and it's not a situation we want to | duplicate with policing. | | > _then maybe the local government could hire on-demand | security forces for when their police capacity is low (and | hold them accountable and to government standards)_ | | Not exactly the same thing, but we've done that with | military contractors, and that has not worked out | particularly well for accountability. | deugo wrote: | I think the American health care system is a current | dystopia: people are going bankrupt in a first-world | country for contracting the terrible disease. | | Once basic protection, education, healthcare, etc. is | offered to anyone (I do not see America in the future | relying on private security forces for basic protection, | so I think basic protection is covered), then private | protection, education or healthcare should not be a | problem. | | If America really needs private forces for maintaining | basic protection, then it is probably better they have | oversight of local government and serve the wider public, | not secluded to a gated community. | bserge wrote: | I come from a country where private security is very common. | Used to be ubiquitous until people started getting beaten up | because the employer said so. | | So the police force just got funded enough to be bigger than | all of the private companies. They are now the biggest private | security service provider (yes, for profit company, separate | from public police but run by the state, full of ex- | police/military). It's quite ridiculous tbh. | | If you're rich, you're untouchable, while poor people eat dirt | in prison even if they're not guilty. Not that different from | the US. | | Incidentally, our military is full of used American equipment. | Great value, maybe a bit too much for a country that wouldn't | last a week in a war with any neighbour. | asdff wrote: | You probably can afford a private security force right now. In | LA rates are like $20/hr. Not sure what this citizen app is | offering, except packaging an industry that already exists and | trying to sell it at markup to people who don't know this | industry exists. I guess that's a pretty decent business model | actually. | kelnos wrote: | While the "defund the police" movement certainly has a lot of | different motives and goals, my personal take on it is that we | should be defunding the police for things that they are a bad | fit for: handling things like mental health issues and doing | wellness checks. Funding should be kept at levels high enough | to handle being first responders to actual crimes and such. | deugo wrote: | Completely agree. Should not have taken a jab at it (maybe a | reaction to those both supporting defunding public police and | also vocally opposing my decisions in a private market to | recover my security). | | IMO The entire justice system should be revamped with a focus | on rehabilitation in society and viewing most drug-related | "criminals" as victims who need treatment for their addiction | or illness. Also concerned about the militarization of the | police, and feel their budget could be spend better. | JulianMorrison wrote: | You know what would be great? If Karens had access to an app that | could deliver branded cars full of rent-a-cops to their location | at the push of the button. | | What's the problem, Customer? Did that nasty man demand you leash | your dog in an area where dogs are required to be leashed? Let us | just sit on him and hit him with sticks for a bit. | newaccount2021 wrote: | An example cited in the article mentions a Citizen staffer | wanting an escort to a coffee shop...if these are the types of | situations where one might want to utilize a private | service...what's the harm? The police aren't your personal | bodyguards. Most colleges have walk-home services etc. | | In many states, security guards can be armed in public, but so | can private citizens. | | The endgame for this will be large-scale gated communities that | are town-level. A surefire to prevent homelessness in a | particular town is for the entire town to be private property. If | you can't card-in, you don't get in. Dystopian yes, but probably | inevitable, and the trail was blazed by the modern corporate | campus that operates on the same principles. | throwaway15579 wrote: | I would say the trail was blazed by cities over-correcting from | the war on drugs and basically making low-level crime | completely unpunished or enforced. | klyrs wrote: | What happens when your private security is infringing my | rights? Maybe I'll hire my own private security to fight your | private security. Only a fool brings nonlethal ammo to a knife | fight... | | Funny thing about the second amendment, people always gloss | over the _well regulated_ militia, and we 're accelerating away | from that, pedal to the metal | newaccount2021 wrote: | Did you read the article? No one is suggesting a private army | with special legal rights to employ force. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | Between these leaked e-mails and the leaked Slack transcripts in | the Verge article ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27236660 | ) it seems some Citizen employees are at least doing their part | to push back on this ridiculousness. | notatoad wrote: | when employees at facebook or google push back against the bad | parts of the business, that's an encouraging sign because it | might cause the company to focus more on the good parts of | their business. | | when the employees at a company that only exists for the sake | of authoritarian bullshit start pushing back, it's not really | encouraging in the same way, because Citizen has no "good part | of the business" to shift to. | devtul wrote: | In Brazil the state provides free healthcare and of course, | security through two polices, the day to day enforcement through | the Military Police, and the investigative arm the Civil Police. | | Since both services are lacking, everyone that can pay, either | from out of pocket or as a employment benefit, uses the private | healthcare system. The more well to be pay for private security, | bullet-proof cars, and other measures. | | It's symptomatic to see people using private services, as it may | show the state provided ones are falling short. Defunding only | hurts the poor that can't afford to pay for good private | services. | yosito wrote: | I'm currently reading The Sovereign Individual (1999), which | predicted that the State would start to lose it's monopoly on the | use of force in the Information Age. I wonder if that's what | we're seeing happen here. It's a bit disturbing to think that we | may be going from having a state that (in theory) offers | protection to all of it's citizens to only the privileged being | able to hire private security, which is virtually unaccountable | to the law, at their own expense. I'm hoping that this Citizen | app is just one organization that's crossing the line that is | soon to be shut down, but I worry that it represents a larger | trend. | gotoeleven wrote: | Perversely this is where the equity madness leads.. in | education, since they can't make everyone achieve like asian | kids, they are going to eliminate programs for advanced | students. Rich people will go to private schools. | | In policing, since they can't figure out how to keep certain | groups from committing crimes at higher rates than other | groups, they're going to just stop policing. Rich people will | get their own police forces. | asdff wrote: | If we want to know where we are going, we should just look at | other countries with similar levels of rampant crony corruption | and growing inequality. I'd say an example would be Brazil, but | they actually build a lot more housing and have a stronger | social safety net than the U.S., and a favela seems like a | decent place to live compared to a ripped up tarp and some | cardboard on the sidewalk. | jeffbee wrote: | I sincerely hope you are reading that trash just because you | want to empathize with the libertarian wing of the VC class, | because it would be sad if you expected it to be the product of | serious thinking. | azernik wrote: | I think that in most countries but the US, the state will stomp | down on any such infringement _hard_ ; and in the US the state | will use a much lighter and slower hand. | | Every time I can think of that people have predicted (with hope | or fear) the Information Age will bring about an erosion of | state authority, the state's control of existing levers of | power have trumped the mere ability to organize/communicate. | throwaway15579 wrote: | One thing that comes to mind here is that on-demand private | security with fast response times are common-place in high crime | countries and cities (such as Brazil and South Africa). I'm | honestly not surprised that people in LA are turning to this and | I wouldn't be surprised if this catches on pretty quickly where I | live (Seattle). | | From what I can tell it seem like almost complete open season on | property theft and damage in Seattle. | | In short, I don't really blame Citizen for doing this, I blame | the politicians for not providing an adequately safe or lawful | city. | zeppelin101 wrote: | The popularity of such security services in Brazil and South | Africa is the first thing I thought about when I heard "defund | the police" last summer. I then told everyone that people will | start spending a lot more money on increasing their security, | be it fencing or private security forces. It's not a | complicated concept. | amznthrwaway wrote: | Try to imagine the police were run as a business, and think | about how things would be different. | | Immense savings could be had just by realizing that you don't | need to send an officer (fully loaded cost $400k/yr) in a | $75,000 car to drive to the scene of a non-violent crime to | fill out a form. | | Defunding the police could easily result in lower costs and | better service to citizens, if (and only if) we can get the | authoritarian right to stop aggressively defending waste, and | we actually work to improve the situation. | jeffbee wrote: | South Africa and Brazil have a common root cause of their crime | problem: a tiny but grossly engorged upper class holds the | majority of the wealth and income while everyone else eats mud. | As the USA edges closer to that reality, our problems will | begin to mirror theirs. | atweiden wrote: | > South Africa and Brazil have a common root cause of their | crime problem: a tiny but grossly engorged upper class holds | the majority of the wealth and income while everyone else | eats mud. | | Studies correlating wealth inequality with criminality are | less than convincing [1]. A 2016 study, | controlling for different factors than previous | studies, challenges the aforementioned findings. The study | finds "little evidence of a significant empirical | link between overall inequality and crime", and that | "the previously reported positive correlation between | violent crime and economic inequality is largely | driven by economic segregation across neighborhoods instead | of within-neighborhood inequality". A 2020 study | found that in Europe, the inequality-crime | correlation was present but weak (0.10), explaining | less than 3% of the variance in crime with a similar | finding occurring for the United States, while another 2019 | study argued that the effect of inequality on | property crime was nearly zero. | | From that same article, Alaska has the lowest wealth | inequality in the US and also the highest homicide rate. | | Impoverishment doesn't cause criminality, see e.g. post- | internment Japanese-American and early 20th century | E.European Jewish American immigrant populations. Rather, the | root causes of systemic poverty are strongly correlated with | criminality [2]. Which isn't to say extreme wealth inequality | isn't bad: the French Revolution readily disproves that | notion. But the French Revolution is in a different league | from property crime. | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_economic_inequa | lity... | | [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/16/books/what-is- | intelligenc... | | [2]: | https://www.nytimes3xbfgragh.onion/1994/10/16/books/what- | is-... | asdff wrote: | Private security patrolling exclusive neighborhoods in LA has | been a thing since the 70s. Even the scientology properties all | over town have a private security force riding on those mall | cop segways. | donmcronald wrote: | It would be scary to see a country like the US fail to point | where public police services are abandoned in favor of private | forces. | | I think it could happen too because private police forces | benefit the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. | Why pay for police in the poor neighborhoods if you have walls | and private police for your gated community? | | What we're seeing in western countries worries me. The | progressive tax system is being attacked IMO because breaking | it benefits the wealthy. It's much cheaper for the richest 20% | to fund private police forces for themselves than funding a | public police force for everyone. | | And IMO the reason the police can't keep up is because we've | had 40 years of underfunding public institutions so the wealthy | can hoard more and more money. It's not shocking to see | increased levels of drug abuse and crime because those | correlate with poverty. | | We need to force the rich to pay there fair share of taxes. The | resources being used for yachts and private jets needs to be | getting put into education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc.. | | This is a great example of a misallocation of capital. Instead | of funding an app for a private police force we'd be better off | if that money had been collected via taxes and allocated to | building schools. | cupcake-unicorn wrote: | Already happening in Seattle you just have to live in Durkan's | hood: https://laurelhurstcc.com/security/ | dwt204 wrote: | Sounds like OmniCorp from Robocop. Private security firms in | gated communications is well over 60 years old, but now augmented | with new IT technologies and AI, this could be a problem, | especially if legislation is passed to legitimize these outfits | and give them special police powers, which many private security | firms have now, including carrying firearms. | motohagiography wrote: | Who is the American customer for a service like this? I knew | someone who did VIP protection (standard former military, | protecting bank execs and families during travel), but the work | was mainly international travel. | | The threat model appears basically to be urban street crime and | maybe targeted harassment and political pressure. Unsure what | else. If I could get this for airstrikes, I would totally buy it | though. | avs733 wrote: | I'll likely get flack for this but it's white people. Out of | touch white people specifically. | [deleted] | throwaway15579 wrote: | In my neighborhood in Seattle I've seen a tweaked-out | individual literally just walking down the street spray- | painting cars at around 6pm on a weekday. | | I called the police and they told me all officers were busy on | more urgent/violent calls and wouldn't be able to respond. | | This was before COVID and the department is even more short- | staffed now. | nobody9999 wrote: | >In my neighborhood in Seattle I've seen a tweaked-out | individual literally just walking down the street spray- | painting cars at around 6pm on a weekday. | | Despite the damage to the cars, that sounds more like a | mental health problem than a crime problem. | | Which is one of the big problems we have with current | policing models. We throw folks trained to use _deadly force_ | at issues that are better suited to mental health | professionals trained in de-escalation. | | I get it that many folks don't really care about their fellow | humans except as threats/enemies/potential rivals for mates | and resources. | | And I also get that, as in your example, many folks don't | care about the well-being of other people (as in your | example, a 'tweaker'. How do you know that? Were they | shooting meth as they spray-painted the cars?), especially if | they engage in anti-social behaviors. | | In fact, many folks would support it if we just | killed/imprisoned anyone who makes them uncomfortable or | unhappy. | | The issues that we lump into a black box called "mental | illness" are poorly understood and even more poorly addressed | in our society. | | Even worse, more often than not we dump the "mental illness" | black box into a larger black box called "criminals". | | As Hubert Humphrey put it[0]: The moral test | of government is how that government treats those who | are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are | in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in | the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the | handicapped. | | I posit that our current policies and practices fail that | moral test. Those who are most distressed/needy/lost are | usually abused, shunned and thrown away by our society, | rather than nurtured, helped and hopefully brought into | society as productive members. | | Why is it generally the former rather than the latter? I'd | say that it was a culture of selfishness, greed and a lack of | empathy buried under several layers of soft-soaping like | "personal responsibility", "pulling oneself up by the | bootstraps", "poverty is a moral failing" and a bunch of | other tropes. | | Sentient life is precious. We should treat it that way, | IMNSHO. But we don't. And more's the pity. | | [0] https://www.columbian.com/news/2016/nov/11/letter-quote- | from... | Cyberdog wrote: | > Despite the damage to the cars, that sounds more like a | mental health problem than a crime problem. | | In the long term, I agree with you. In the short term, it | would be nice if the people who we are forced to pay for | the task of preventing antisocial behavior would stop the | person who is causing tens of thousands of dollars in | property damage, since broadly speaking nobody else has the | right to do so. | | To put it another way, how much more damage does this | person need to do before you consider it a crime problem? | nobody9999 wrote: | >In the long term, I agree with you. In the short term, | it would be nice if the people who we are forced to pay | for the task of preventing antisocial behavior would stop | the person who is causing tens of thousands of dollars in | property damage, since broadly speaking nobody else has | the right to do so. | | I don't disagree with you. At all. This is a complicated | set of issues that will require complex solutions (note | the plural). | | It would be great if we could stop such folks from | causing property damage. | | Our society is governed by laws and, more importantly, | respect for those laws by the vast majority of us. | | Unless we kill or imprison _everyone_ who might engage in | such activities, I 'd say that we'll likely always have | some of that sort of activity. | | Reducing the number of folks without strong ties to | society/the community seems the best way to address these | issues over both the medium and long term. | | As for short term solutions, that's much more difficult, | as we've spent centuries demonizing the mentally ill, the | poor and others society has deemed as "lesser." | | >To put it another way, how much more damage does this | person need to do before you consider it a crime problem? | | A valid question. Without a lot of reflection I'd say | that it's less important to determine whether or not some | act (or collection of acts) is "criminal" than it is to | identify the appropriate mechanism(s) to minimize the | likelihood of such behavior from that individual in the | future. | | And there are many mechanisms to choose from. That | incarceration has been the default for a long time | doesn't always (or even most of the time) make it the | right mechanism. | | A broad and complex set of issues underlie this | discussion and I haven't done it justice here. That said, | I urge people to look beyond the display and use of force | as the _only_ mechanism to address these issues. | crimandnakatoya wrote: | Ha, that's nothing. Two years ago, I walked up to a police | officer in Seattle and pointed out an individual who was | splayed face-first on the sidewalk a half-block away, in | front of a food truck where a line of customers was patiently | stepping over them. | | The officer shrugged and walked off in the opposite | direction. I think that was the moment that I decided it was | time for a change of scenery. | vkou wrote: | Short-staffed? SPD has one of the largest police presences, | per-capita, of any American metro area, (while Seattle has | middling crime statistics). | | They aren't short-staffed, as much as they are deliberately | avoiding doing any work. They were also engaged in a lot of | overtime grift over the past decade, which the city started | to crack down on in 2019. | qvrjuec wrote: | I don't think your understanding is correct, see this | article: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/is- | the-seattl... | | This was also written in late 2020. There are now 1,080 | deployable officers, down from 1,325 as seen here: | https://www.seattle.gov/police/about-us/about-the- | department... | Rebelgecko wrote: | For comparison's sake, New York City and Chicago have about | 4x more officers per capita than Seattle | vkou wrote: | The NYC counts are bloated because they include a whole | bunch of 'police' that have nothing to do with boots-on- | the-street policing. Financial regulators and port | inspectors, for instance, are included in those counts. | xeromal wrote: | And that's what this "security" force would solve. | vkou wrote: | The problem with police today is that there is no | _single_ problem with them. They are near-useless for | solving crime. They are useless for preventing it. They | are bad at dealing with situations that don 't require a | thug with a gun. Sometimes, they can't follow the law, | while trying to enforce it. Other times, they enforce | something that is not the law. Sometimes, they ignore | dangerous, illegal behaviour. Sometimes, they employ | incredibly excessive force to deal with not-dangerous, | maybe-illegal behaviour. When they screw up, regardless | of how badly they screwed up, it's nearly impossible to | hold them accountable for it. | | Yes, you can cherry-pick one of those problems, and claim | that uber-for-mob-justice will solve it. Will it make any | of these other problems worse? Better? Worse for people | who can't pay, better for people who can? | | I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good, but | I am not particularly impressed by this. | xeromal wrote: | > Oh? They are going to figure out who stole my catalytic | converter, and arrest the fence who bought it? | | I think the idea is to try to catch it in the act. The | LAPD is notorious for being slow. I was in a hit and run | accident where my car was completely totaled and I was in | a daze and it took them an hour to come and I'm pretty | sure the only reason they actually came was because a | bystander was mad and claimed there was injuries after | waiting with me for a while. If they wont' come to an | accident in a good time, I doubt they come to a break in. | lol | [deleted] | xsmasher wrote: | I live in an area where people dump debris (furniture, | construction debris, yard waste) in the public park and on | sidewalks every day. | | I would love to hire security to watch for dumpers and report | them to the city's dumping hotline, along with descriptions and | plate numbers. | | This would be peak gentrifier behavior, but a (hopefully) | handful of bad actors are trashing an otherwise nice | neighborhood and I'm at the end of my rope. | asdff wrote: | you can probably do that right now with someone from fiverr | motohagiography wrote: | Just clicked for me that someone on Fiverr living somewhere | very cheap could pilot an internet connected drone that can | return to a charging pad and it would replace a lot of | these use cases. | nobody9999 wrote: | > I live in an area where people dump debris (furniture, | construction debris, yard waste) in the public park and on | sidewalks every day. | | >I would love to hire security to watch for dumpers and | report them to the city's dumping hotline, along with | descriptions and plate numbers. | | If that's really a serious problem in your area, you and your | neighbors can set up a neighborhood watch/surveillance | cameras/etc. to address that without hiring private security | to do it for you. | | Or are you too good to support your neighbors and | neighborhood with your time and effort? | | Want to have a good neighborhood? Be a good neighbor. | xsmasher wrote: | I spend seven hours a week cleaning up litter, watching for | dumpers, and reporting garbage; that is the limit of the | time and effort I can give. | | I have no more time but I do have money. | | Supporting my neighbors and neighborhood is exactly what I | want to do - assuming they also want clean streets - so | your criticism is really a stretch. | chasd00 wrote: | This is one of the things neighborhood watch programs are | aimed to do. | podric wrote: | I can see many use cases: - A woman going home late after a | night out needing to walk thru a dangerous neighborhood - | Elderly Asian person who needs to withdraw money from a bank - | Urban photographer who wants to photograph abandoned buildings | but is afraid of squatters/gangs - Woman who needs to go to a | heavily-protested abortion clinic - Owner of a store that is | about to get looted in a riot - Owner of a store who needs | security personnel at peak shoplifting hours - Owner of a late | night restaurant who needs security personnel at peak violent | drunk people hours | asdff wrote: | These aren't practical or realistic use cases, though, and | many are already covered by the existing private security | industry. | | An uber ride is cheaper than hiring private security to walk | you through the hood. An elderly asian person is more likely | to die crossing the road to a bank than be robbed at a bank. | Urban photographers who wouldn't already be operating with a | small crew are probably too broke to hire a bodyguard, nor is | there some big wave or urban photographers being targeted | currently. Chances are if that gear is your work its also | already insured. The store owner probably already hires | private security for not much more than minimum wage, and in | the case of a looting, chances are the store owner would | rather you go home and have insurance pay for the damages, | than deal with the legal headache of their hired gun | potentially killing someone in their store. Keep in mind when | D.C. police who were defending the capitol building faced a | mob, they allowed them to breach the building. I doubt | private security is going to stick out their neck for your | little shop more than D.C. police did for the U.S. capitol. | You probably aren't hiring Blackwater mercenaries. The owner | of the bar is paying their bouncers under the table already, | the last thing they want is some pricey contract for a job | they are already getting done just fine. | podric wrote: | _An elderly asian person is more likely to die crossing the | road to a bank than be robbed at a bank._ | | I don't think you've been keeping up with the news of the | wave of attacks targeting Asian elders. Many of them have | been beaten and robbed on the way to run errands. | | _in the case of a looting, chances are the store owner | would rather you go home and have insurance pay for the | damages, than deal with the legal headache of their hired | gun potentially killing someone in their store._ | | You're way overestimating the number of small business | owners who have sufficient insurance to cover a looting | event, and way underestimating the extent to which small | business owners are willing to protect their store (e.g. | Roof Koreans) | | _Keep in mind when D.C. police who were defending the | capitol building faced a mob, they allowed them to breach | the building_ | | That actually demonstrates the value provided by an app | offering on-demand private security. When cops failed to | stop the insurrectionists, they faced minimal negative | consequences. On the other hand, if your hired private | security fails to stop looters, they can expect a negative | review from you on the app which in turn threatens their | career on the app. | | _The owner of the bar is paying their bouncers under the | table already_ | | I said late night restaurants, not bars. When was the last | time you've seen a bouncer at a late night restaurant? | | I agree that some of the cases I brought up are a bit far | fetched. That being said, here's a great use case that I'm | sure we can both agree on for on-demand security: | | - Domestic violence prevention. In cases where a spouse | feels threatened but does not have enough evidence for the | cops to get involved, on-demand private security is the | best option. | | A tragedy like the Adam Matos case would have been | prevented had the victim used on-demand private security. | The victim was threatened by Matos, her ex, and she called | the cops, who didn't/couldn't do anything, which resulted | in her and her family being killed by said ex within 24 | hours. | [deleted] | jakeinspace wrote: | Personally, as someone with very little interest in 2A, I'd | prefer seeing people arm themselves rather than calling on budget | Pinkertons. | pklausler wrote: | Putting aside this particular company, I do think that there may | be a market for a service that would provide documented | accountable security responses for situations where subscribers | have a legitimate hesitancy for ethical reasons to call public | emergency services that have a history of racism or | disproportionate violence. I'm not going to call my local PD for | a noise complaint I can't handle because I worry that they're | going to kill a person or their dog and I don't want that on my | conscience. | analog31 wrote: | Likewise, there could also be a market for a service that comes | to your aid when you are targeted by a private security force. | For instance if someone comes to my house because of a noise | complaint, I would not want to answer the door, but could call | either the police or my own security service to hash it out | with whoever is visiting me. | | This could get interesting. | mike_d wrote: | Privately owned police departments and privately funded police | officers already exist in the US. University Police, private | police forces at nuclear plants and chemical plants, heck I | know of at least one megachurch that has a SWAT team. | | The US Marshalls service has a "special deputy" program where | bodyguards of the rich and famous become federal law | enforcement with little to no oversight. This allows them to | carry firearms nationwide regardless of state or local laws. | chaostheory wrote: | This is inevitable. Even before the defund the police movement, | departments across the country had police shortages where for | every 5 officers they needed, they only had 3. | | Things have gotten worse regardless of which side of the debate | you're on | | https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/police-in-philly-and-be... | | I was just expecting AI and robots to take over ala Robocop and | Little Sister cameras everywhere. I did not foresee the gig | companies like Bannerman and Citizen doing it, but here we are. | Black101 wrote: | Around here they pull over people for simple traffic stops with | 3 police cars | chaostheory wrote: | I'm just the messenger, and anecdotes aren't as useful as | data. | chitowneats wrote: | > First released under the name Vigilante in 2016 | | Oh, I see. | Pfhreak wrote: | Hey, someone invented Pinkertons as a service! | | I look forward to this being used to violate the rights of | minorities, union strikers, women, and the homeless! ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-05-21 23:01 UTC)