SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Marseille's battle against the surveillance state
Across the world, video cameras have become an accepted feature of urban life. Many cities in China now have dense networks of them. London and New Delhi aren't far behind.
Now France is playing catch-up. Since 2015, the year of the Bataclan terrorist attacks, the number of cameras in Paris has increased fourfold. The police have used such cameras to enforce pandemic lockdown measures and monitor protests like those of the Gilets Jaunes. And a new nationwide security law, adopted last year, allows for video surveillance by police drones during events like protests and marches.
[...] Concerns have been raised throughout the country. But the surveillance rollout has met special resistance in Marseille, France's second-biggest city. The boisterous, rebellious Mediterranean town sits on some of the fault lines that run through modern France. Known for hip bars, artist studios, and startup hubs, it is also notorious for drugs, poverty, and criminal activity. It has one of the most ethnically diverse populations in Europe but is stranded in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, a region that leans far right. The city pushes back. Its attitude could be summed up by graffiti you might pass as you drive in on the A7 motorway: "La vie est (re)belle."
Big brother is watching you. The cameras are there for your protection. To prevent crime. But apparently they are only used in about 1-2% of investigations according to reviews. So what is the other 98-99% for? Security theater? Politicians being hard on crime, or having a hard on for crime. Panopticon for the masses that are not involved in crime? It's very hard to measure the effect of prevention in that regard.
But I guess people are starting to get a tad tired of being watched all the time like we are there for the entertainment of some big brother peeping Tom.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday June 20 2022, @07:30AM (7 children)
If you really want to be hard on crime, how about going after embezzlement and corruption? I.e. where most of the country's wealth is being endangered.
But no, that would hurt yourself, wouldn't it?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday June 20 2022, @09:18AM (6 children)
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @09:51AM (4 children)
BZZT WRONG!
Money and manpower are limited. The more is squandered on harassing the commoners, the less remains for calling the fatcats to account.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday June 20 2022, @10:42AM (3 children)
I don't believe that catching criminals is 'harassing the commoners' - unless you are suggesting that all commoners are criminals. I would strongly argue against that belief if you were suggesting that.
Preventing crime improves the lives of everybody.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday June 20 2022, @03:26PM (1 child)
Depends on what you consider a crime. Looking at the criminal code of a couple countries and the more recent development there, I fail to see the crimes that we waste money on now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21 2022, @12:23AM
Violent crime rate is way up in America since the Democrats took over with their soft on crime policies.
You can't deny basic statistics.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @08:43PM
https://kottke.org/13/06/you-commit-three-felonies-a-day [kottke.org]
Welcome to the real world.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Tuesday June 21 2022, @11:06AM
Well, it kinda does.
While creating one law doesn't keep you from creating another one (as long as they're not mutually contradicting), enforcing laws is something that takes manpower and resources. Both are limited. Enforcing one law may very well mean that another one cannot be enforced because the resources to do so are tied up already at enforcing the first one. When all of my police force is busy hunting down people who speed and jaywalk, I have nobody left to enforce drug laws in my country, unless they just so happen to find some drugs in that speeding car...