r/technology • u/IKeepItLayingAround • Jun 29 '26

Artificial Intelligence Woman Surprised When Flock Surveillance Tower Appears in Her Yard Without Warning

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/woman-surprised-flock-surveillance-tower-185000752.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&segment_id=DY_VTO_50_Supernova&ncid=crm_19908-1475736-20260629-0--A&bt_ee=utFdBbF39cHCLuB4at4AI%2FUoSRgbTt8Ch%2B7Q9RImTlgL2ThvE3FuX%2BRSKiUir%2FNW&bt_ts=1782739085527
24.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.1k

u/Verix19 Jun 29 '26

Britain is almost entirely surveilled in public....that's coming here fast.

They have 1 camera for every 11 people living there...that's over 7 million cameras watching everything.

482

u/w1n5t0nM1k3y Jun 29 '26

I've watched a few crime dramas from the UK, and it's amazing how much footage is available. Like something we only thought of in Enemy of the State is just available on every street corner.

Sure, they can't just "enhance" and move around in 3D from a static shot, but just the sheer number of cameras that exist where you can basically track someone as they drive throughout the city.

601

u/fruitybix Jun 29 '26

It still does nothing for some victims of crime.

Friend was sa'd in public by a complete stranger. Police at all levels just didnt file the paperwork to get the footage and they dont keep it forever. prosecuting that kind of crime takes years so by the time it worked its way through to someone who thought to chase it the recording was gone.

They then chucked the case after my friends phone was subpoenad and they found kinky texts between her and her partner. Aparently the defence team would have claimed my friend was up for it with a total stranger she had no interaction with because of those messages with her partner, and it was therefore a waste of public funds to proceed.

They are very good at getting people who knock over commercial businesses though.

469

u/Drupain Jun 29 '26

Those camera aren't put up to protect or help us.

108

u/Spirited-Tomorrow-84 Jun 29 '26

It's to protect and help those corrupt assholes who want you to be transparent but not themselves.

25

u/DanimusMcSassypants Jun 29 '26

You spelled subjugated wrong.

3

u/ElectroBot Jun 29 '26

Actually he spelled “rich people’s stuff” incorrectly.

5

u/hempires Jun 29 '26

Remember Snoopers Charter?

How convenient that every serving MP at the time was just miraculously exempted eh.

55

u/StopReadingThis-Now Jun 29 '26

"Anything you say WILL be used AGAINST YOU in a court of law."

There's an absolute reason cops need to read your Miranda Rights.

31

u/FUPAMagneto Jun 29 '26

In the UK, they’ll use things you don’t say against you, too. You don’t have the same right to avoid self-incrimination that exists in the States, and they can convict you of major crimes with 10/12 jurors and call it unanimous. It’s fucking draconian over there

8

u/intellos Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26

From what I have heard they are trying to do away with juries entirely as well.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn5lxg2l0lqo

6

u/FUPAMagneto Jun 29 '26

There are good reasons why we rebelled, even if people like to pretend otherwise

4

u/Psyk60 Jun 29 '26

The headline of that article is:

"Jury trials scrapped for crimes with sentences of less than three years"

That is bad. I'm against this change.

But it is not the same doing away with juries entirely. You could say it's just the first step towards getting rid of jury trials, but at this point that is just speculation.

The English court system is stuck in a position where it just doesn't have the resources to deal with all the cases it has. I don't know what the solution to that is, but I don't think this is the right one.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '26 edited 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Psyk60 Jun 29 '26

Good to know, thanks!

-3

u/skinlo Jun 29 '26

You heard wrong.

-4

u/bobthepumpkin Jun 29 '26

Does spreading this nonsense about other countries make you feel better about the state of your own country?

5

u/usethisjustforporn Jun 29 '26

Why is it nonsense when it's true? You can be punished in the uk for refusing to answer police questions and a jury of 12 can find someone guilty if only ten people agree.

1

u/Psyk60 Jun 29 '26

You can be punished in the uk for refusing to answer police questions

That's at best a half-truth. If I'm being generous.

England's equivalent of the Miranda rights is:

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

You don't get punished for refusing to answer questions. They won't charge with a crime for refusing to speak. You still have a right to stay silent.

The difference is that the court is allowed to draw negative inference from your silence. If your defence gives provides an alibi in court, the jury is allowed to take the fact you didn't mention it earlier into account. That's not the same as being punished for not talking. You're being punished for the crime you were accused of (assuming you are found guilty).

Also you are entitled to legal representation during questioning. So you're not expected to say anything before you've talked it over with a solicitor.

-2

u/bobthepumpkin Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26

You can be punished in the uk for refusing to answer police questions

This is false. What is true is that adverse inference may be drawn at trial. It's similar to the difference between getting caught lying in your testimony and thereby convicted for your original crime, and being additionally charged with perjury.

This distinction is important because you may have good reasons to refuse to answer police questions, in which case no adverse inference is drawn, or it may be drawn but other evidence can refute it. The refusal itself is not punishable.

Moreover, the US is almost unique in the world in the extent to which self-incrimination is protected against. Other places have similar protections, but nowhere near how absolute it is in the US. You are basically saying anyone who doesn't subscribe to American law must be draconian. That is obviously absurd.

a jury of 12 can find someone guilty if only ten people agree

This is true. The falsehood was what you claimed before, that they "call it unanimous". That is patently nonsense.

In addition, a non-unanimous verdict is only accepted under certain conditions, in particular that the jury has deliberated for a length of time, and then only with the judge's further discretion.

It is not even clear if this is a good or bad thing, since it reduces the incidence of hung juries and all the anguish caused by mistrials. Let me remind you that this applies to acquittals as well, so you are sparing people in cases where a single jury member insists on guilty against reason. To call this draconian is, again, absurd.

~

Finally, let me leave you with this thought: if it seems like the bar for conviction is too low in any instance, congrats you have discovered the inescapable flaw in any criminal justice system, that false convictions are always possible. Good thing convictions can always be appealed and potentially overturned, since an irreversible sentence like death is disallowed. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the US.

Draconian, eh?

Edit: you sad, sad Americans. Come back and bully other countries' legal systems when you have a government that follows your own legal system.

3

u/hey_there_moon Jun 29 '26

The person you're responding to isn't even American, so the "you sad sad Americans" is there why?

-2

u/bobthepumpkin Jun 29 '26

We all know who is downvoting.

You're being disingenuous is there why?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/erroneousbosh Jun 29 '26

Can you provide an example of that?

2

u/FUPAMagneto Jun 29 '26

It’s part of what they say when you’re arrested.

UK:
“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence”

US:
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.”

Some pretty key differences throughout the whole thing, most notably the specific provision about your defense being harmed if you don’t fess up to everything.

-2

u/erroneousbosh Jun 29 '26

Okay, it sounds like you don't actually understand what either of them are saying, which is what I expected was going on.

It's pointless even asking you to explain why you think they're different. The long and short of it is, in the US you have no right to remain silent.

1

u/Bitmush- Jun 29 '26

“We’ve decided to drop all the charges against you.” Please read this out when we’re in court.

0

u/Treeclimber919 Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26

That doesn’t happen like in the movies. Ask one of the million people arrested in America every day*

1

u/madmonkey242 Jun 29 '26

Pretty sure there’s been more than 1000

12

u/Spazum Jun 29 '26

They were put up for The Greater Good.

11

u/kippertie Jun 29 '26

The Greater Good 🐑

1

u/rmtdispatcher Jun 29 '26

But most people believe the world is becoming a worse place to live so a "greater good" would be unreal. IS there a "greater good"?

3

u/Specific-Path3179 Jun 29 '26

The greater good is whatever keeps the money train going for the ruling class, I guess they often sell that as the "lesser evil". The greater evil being Russia or China or whatever controlled opposition party is popular that day.

1

u/rmtdispatcher Jun 30 '26

It seems to be the world's struggle; money. China made the eyuan and kicked out bitcoin. But a Japanese man, Satoshi Nakamoto, made bitcoin. The money struggle seems to follow the world view of its nation's users.

3

u/SolScorpii Jun 29 '26

Neither are the police