Loading video…
All breakouts
Flockseen in 2 videos →
10.7Talking HeadContrarian hook
Hook
Constant public surveillance actually isn't helping, like at all.
@ufdtech
443.8K followers · usually 11.9K views a post
Views
119.8K
Likes
10.9K
Comments
72
Shares
230
Selling · Other Product
Why it worked
The video challenges a common assumption about public safety, using data and a critical perspective to question the effectiveness of surveillance technology. This contrarian viewpoint and the focus on a specific, widely deployed technology likely resonated with viewers.
Summary
The video questions the effectiveness of constant public surveillance, specifically mentioning Flock cameras in Atlanta. Despite a significant increase in cameras, crime clearance rates have not meaningfully improved, suggesting the surveillance may not be deterring crime as intended.
Structure
- 1Introduction to the ineffectiveness of surveillance
- 2Focus on Flock cameras in Atlanta
- 3Data showing no improvement in crime clearance rates
- 4Discussion of potential reasons for lack of improvement
- 5Conclusion on the impact of surveillance on innocent people
Product placement
Flock: This is a company that provides surveillance cameras. The video shows their cameras are used in Atlanta and implies they have a deal with the city. This is a case where the product ACTS, as the video discusses its function and impact. Removing the name would change the video's subject. Flock Safety: Mentioned as a provider of cameras that are part of Atlanta's surveillance network. This ACTS as the video discusses their role in crime deterrence and clearance rates. Removing the name would change the video's subject. Ring: Mentioned as part of Atlanta's network of integrated cameras. This ACTS as the video discusses its role in crime deterrence and clearance rates. Removing the name would change the video's subject.
Original caption
Constant public surveillance actually ISN’T helping - like, at all Those Flock cameras everyone hates have a headquarters based in Atlanta, and it’s one of the most heavily monitored cities by the data thieves - I mean, company And since they have a deal with the city to cover the place with their cameras in order to deter crimes - their clearance rates should’ve decreased since that all started a few years back, right? Well, no. It’s actually barely changed in either direction in the past half a decade, and Flock’s stopped publicly reporting clearance rates since then - presumably because of precisely this reason There’s a few percentage points of wiggle room in either direction for different categories of crimes - but for the most part people seem to either just be avoiding the cameras before doing bad stuff, or just disregarding them entirely - and the people paying for it the most are the ones NOT doing anything wrong that’re getting spied on day in and day out
More from @ufdtech
Their other posts in the index, biggest breakout first.
