@ufdtech — 11x breakout

Loading video…

Constant public surveillance actually isn't helping, like at all.

@ufdtech

445.7K followers · usually 10.8K views a post

Views

119.8K

Likes

10.9K

Comments

230

Promoted product

Flock

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