In California and Elsewhere, Fear of Crime Drives the Surveillance State

Concerns about public safety will eventually recede, but Big Brother will still be watching.

Did somebody say something about never letting a crisis go to waste? That may well have been on California Gov. Gavin Newsom's mind when he announced the installation of hundreds of surveillance cameras in Oakland to address public concerns about crime. Whether or not robberies and assaults decline because of police monitoring, you can bet those cameras will remain in place long after everybody has forgotten the reason for their existence.

Crime Fears Become an Excuse for Surveillance

"Building on public safety investments in Oakland and the East Bay, Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has entered into a contract with Flock Safety to install a network of approximately 480 high-tech cameras in the City of Oakland and on state freeways in the East Bay to combat criminal activity and freeway violence," the governor's office announced Mar 29.

The surveillance plan essentially bypasses local authorities, involving a contract between the California Highway Patrol and Flock Safety to install and maintain 290 cameras along surface streets and 190 cameras along state highways. Still, Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, a Democrat, embraced the announcement, saying "this new camera network will help us stop crime and hold more suspects accountable."

Discussing crime rates is a good way to start an argument. Data is self-reported by law enforcement agencies and always about a year out of date. Polling finds a majority of Americans concerned about crime, while the FBI reports most violent crimes declining as of 2022 (the most recent data) after a surge during the chaos of 2020 that broke from decades of declining rates. Robbery and property crimes, on the other hand, spiked upwards, according to the FBI. Evidence suggests further reductions in violence in 2023, though the data isn't yet complete.

But crime varies from place to place, which means that nationwide numbers don't tell the full story; people experience local conditions, not national averages. They respond to what they perceive. California is among the states bucking the positive national trend, according to state and FBI statistics.

"The violent crime rate increased 6.1 percent in 2022…and the property crime rate increased 6.2 percent in 2022," according to the California Department of Justice's Criminal Justice Statistics Center. FBI state-level crime data agrees California saw an increase in crime that year. Oakland, in particular, has a problem.

"Overall, reported crimes in Oakland rose 18% in 2023 compared to 2022, with violent crime up 21% and property crime up 17%," the San Francisco Chronicle reported in March.

That resulted in a recall effort against Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price and a new chief for the Oakland Police Department. It has also meant an influx of California Highway Patrol officers to bolster local law enforcement, as well as the installation of hundreds of surveillance cameras.

Playing Politics With Public Concerns

Much of this is for show. Nobody expects the highway patrol will permanently patrol Oakland, just as nobody anticipates seeing National Guard troops in New York City subway stations for an extended period of time (FBI figures also show a rise in violent crime in New York for 2022, though state and New York City data show improvements since). In both cases, warm bodies in uniform were dispatched without much thought as to their use or coordination with local authorities.

"So far, they are mainly scenes of soldiers and troopers standing at subway entrances with combat rifles while police officers check bags," wrote criminal justice researcher and former cop Brandon del Pozo about the New York deployment, which left him unimpressed as to its necessity or effectiveness. "Where a government deploys its soldiers will always be politics by other means, whether their objective is to topple a foreign regime, or in this case, retake the Pelham One Two Three."

But long after the highway patrol uniforms leave the streets of Oakland, those surveillance cameras will still be there. They'll watch not just criminals who prey on their neighbors, but regular people going about their lives and, undoubtedly, breaking one of California's myriad laws, rules, and regulations. In the name of fighting crime, everybody will be monitored for years to come. The same can be said of New York City efforts to monitor subway riders after the National Guard troops go back home.

New York's High-Tech Surveillance

"New York City Mayor Eric Adams and New York City Police Department (NYPD) Commissioner Edward A. Caban today announced efforts being taken to make the Metropolitan Transit Authority's (MTA) subway system safer by investing in new technology to detect firearms," Adams' office announced March 28, the day before Newsom unveiled the surveillance camera program.

The draft policy statement for the system specifies electromagnetic detectors equipped with cameras to capture the images of those suspected of carrying weapons. Video clips will then be automatically transmitted to police officers for their response.

Once those detectors are installed in subway stations, it's fair to assume they'll be there for years to come. Just like the California surveillance cameras.

It's worth noting that Newsom and Adams responded to fears of crime not by repealing laws that discourage self-defense or by otherwise freeing the public to respond to threats. They went directly to top-down surveillance systems that empower the government at the expense of the individual. In the surveillance state, everybody is a potential suspect.

The British Model

The end result might be something like the United Kingdom, where it's illegal to carry any weapon intended for self-defense, but the public lives under the watchful eyes of over 5 million surveillance cameras. Britons are also subjected to communications monitoring that Edward Snowden calls "the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy." This was all implemented in the name of the public's own good, of course.

"Surveillance footage forms a key component of UK crime prevention strategy," comments Politics.co.uk. But the proliferation of cameras "in public places has fueled unease about the erosion of civil liberties and individual human rights, raising concerns of an Orwellian 'big brother' culture."

With regard to Oakland, Newsom promises "the cameras will assist law enforcement in addressing crime while protecting privacy interests." Maybe, though I wouldn't bet that privacy will be a priority for the people running and monitoring the cameras. But it's fair to say that, faced with very real public concerns about crime, the governor of California didn't let a crisis go to waste.

Comments

[Set Us Up The Chipper]

Likely the desired result of all the defund police and related activities. Ubiquitous law enforcement will end in tears.

[AT]

What’s the point? Oh, they’ve recorded a bunch of crime. Great. So then when what remains of their police force goes out and rounds up said criminals, the DA – invoking the grace of St. Floyd of the Fentanyl – then revolving doors anyone with a melanin content above white, no questions asked. In the meantime, they continue encouraging crime with an indifferent attitude towards illegal aliens and drug use, and forcing everyone else out of a job with an absurd minimum wage and regulatory state that makes it impossible to do business. And of course, in no way will those cameras ever be pointed at the LGBT who will continue running rampant in California targeting as many children as possible, because they’re allowed to operate completely in secret so that the cat never gets out of the bag that the rainbow club is, in all ways shapes and forms, nothing but a bunch of child rapists. The same goes for their sacred cows openly calling for the Death of the Great Satan in the name of Allah.

So, really – the intended target can only be law-abiding white Christians.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

An excellent example of what I was discussing in the anime thread. On how Team Red tends to view liberty.

To AT here, undocumented migrants, drug users, LGBTQ+ folks and Muslims are all very low in their moral worth so they are not entitled to much if any liberty. Straight white Christians are very high in moral worth so they are entitled to lots of liberty. In fact the state should bend over backwards to accommodate the straight white Christians because they are so moral.

[AT]

Undocumented Migrants = Illegal Aliens. And they’re committing large swaths of personal/property crime, BEYOND simply being here, especially in urban areas.

Drugs users = Criminals. And they’re committing drug crimes with impunity, especially in urban areas.

LGBT folks (and their enablers) = Criminals. They’re actively targeting children and grooming them for abuse, rape, mutilation, and suicide.

Muslims (and their enablers) = Criminals. They’ve openly made it abundantly clear that they want nothing short of genocide against the Western World, the total elimination of all Jews/Christians, and the forced imposition of Islam on a global scale.

Are there instances in those categories where the individual participant is the exception to the rule? Sure – there always are. But that doesn’t mean the rule is somehow less true about the groups as a whole. Just like most people who want to intentionally kill their offspring in utero aren’t rape cases.

I never said anything about the moral worth of straight, white, Christians or anything about liberty. Just that they’re the only group of people that it seems acceptable to openly hate, discriminate against, and target for oppressive acts. And so when the State takes actions like California intends here, it’s obviously intended to be turned against straight, white, Christians – and nobody else. Certainly not their gay muslim druggie illegal sacred cows.

[sarcasmic]

I don’t think you’re brush is broad enough. You need to be a little more prejudiced, more judgemental, use more stereotypes, more guilt by association, more thoughtcrime, and blame the many for the actions of the few.

[I…….. Fudd]

You could stand to be even more of a drunken moronic democrat apologist who white knights for the morbidly obese global Marxist pedophile.

You’re just not doing enough of that.

[AT]

Actually, it's blaming the many for the actions of the many. You're only getting twisted about it because you want to pretend that "the few" are the norm - when they're clearly not.

But hey, let's give you the opportunity.

Palestine (Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Bahrain, all of which are ultimately Iran) - good guys or bad guys? (If you're struggling, keep in mind that these are the guys who kidnap, gangrape, torture, murder, put babies in ovens, burn people alive, and then hide behind civilians when anyone tries to stop them.)

Gender-Affirming "Care" Providers/Supporters - good guys or bad guys? (If you're struggling, keep in mind these are the guys who trade in brainwashing then irreversibly sterilizing and mutilating children for the barest and most specious reasons, and enrich themselves in power, pull, and money while doing so.)

Illegal Aliens - good guys or bad guys? (If you're struggling, keep in mind these are the guys who have zero respect for you or your nation as evidenced by the fact that they make zero effort to come here legally and legitimately with any intent to learn anything about you or your ways; and often for the exclusive purpose of taking advantage of the entitlements they've in no way contributed to while openly scoffing at every law you're expected to abide by.)

Drug users - y'know what, I'm not even going to ask "good or bad guys." I'll make it even simpler. Name me one - one - redeeming quality of all the tent cities, sidewalk slums, flophouses, derelicts in rags, twitching half-naked junkies, etc. etc. They are the end result. You go ahead and defend it.

I'll wait.

[Beezard]

“Drug users – y’know what, I’m not even going to ask “good or bad guys.” I’ll make it even simpler. Name me one – one – redeeming quality of all the tent cities, sidewalk slums, flophouses, derelicts in rags, twitching half-naked junkies, etc. etc. They are the end result. You go ahead and defend it.”

End result of what? Drug use? Or stupid malicious police/municipal policies that kneecap the safety and the property rights (both public and private) of tax paying citizens? Not to mention the malicious economic policies that are making it easy as fuck to fall through the cracks?

Because I’ll argue against it being the end result of drug use.

[AT]

End result of what? Drug use?

Yes. Of drug use.

You can blather all you want about safety and property rights and economic policies - but all those smackheads, derelicts, and twitching junkies in the streets, that's because of the drugs. Not a one of those junkies would be there if not for their drug use.

So now answer the question: tell me the redeeming aspects of all the tent cities, sidewalk slums, flophouses, derelicts in rags, twitching half-naked junkies, etc. etc. None of which would be (or, at least, certainly not to the degree that they are) without the drugs.

I'll wait.

[Beezard]

I’m not defending any of those things. They’re not a direct result of drugs. Newsflash. Millions of people did drugs before these policies were in place. And before these tent cities and shit existed. You’re presenting a false choice.

You know who did drugs constantly for years and are totally functioning adults? Me and literally almost everyone I know. I’ve known plenty of people who didn’t turn out ok, too. A funny thing is, the type of drug didn’t really matter in those cases. It’s a behavior issue.

And in many cases, there’s mental illness involved.

At some point, if you’re serious about this individual freedom thing, you’re gonna have to let adults be adults and take responsibility for their own actions.

This means we don’t coddle junkies and tell them it’s not their own fault. This means we don’t fuck over functioning citizens by letting people shit on the sidewalks they paid for. This means we prevent and punish actual crimes. This means we might have to lock up or commit dangerous people.

It also means you can fuck right off with telling people what they can or can’t put in their bodies. I’m all for a slow and measured reform retreat from the drug war. But in a few years of pot being legal in a few places, you’ve already forgotten that you can’t even keep drugs out of prisons. That fentanyl is only the monstrosity it is because you clamped down on legal pain meds. And we should be a little suspicious about it ending up in shit like cocaine.

But go on hump your prohibition solution even though it caused half this shit. I’ll wait.

[AT]

Language.

They’re not a direct result of drugs.

Stop it. Don't be intentionally dense. Take drugs out of the equation - is the problem still as out of control is it is? Of course not.

They are a direct result of drugs. Drug use is the single largest contributor, by a wide margin. You present yourself as the counterexample - the classic (and bogus) argument of, "Well that doesn't apply to me, therefore it doesn't apply to anyone." The problem - and you know it - is that you're the exception, not the rule. It's like pretending all those chicks are popping pills and/or lining up at the abortion mills is because they're all rape cases knocked up by their daddy. Stop it, that's obviously not true.

At some point, if you’re serious about this individual freedom thing, you’re gonna have to let adults be adults and take responsibility for their own actions.

This is a pivot. The underlying issue is a surveillance state. I questioned the need for it since they're not going to be "surveilling" (for the purpose of law enforcement) anyone they SHOULD be surveilling. What's the point of pointing cameras at drug criminals/users if we're not going to use that information to do anything to STOP drug use/users?

Clearly you think we shouldn't be doing anything about them, couching the unmitigated destruction that has followed indifference towards drug proliferation/usage as a necessary byproduct of "individual freedom." The personal delight you take in your degenerate junkie subculture aside, it's like ignoring the dumping of chemicals into the local river. That individual freedom has far-reaching consequences which can't be ignored in the name of something that's causing no immediate harm at the moment.

The reason we should go after the druggies - hard - is simple: Broken Windows. It's a wildly successful approach to law enforcement that discourages worse crimes and makes things better for the public at large by targeting the more minor (and controllable) problems that cause a harmful effect to a community overall. Crack down on the two-block rock dealer and the guy who just left him with a dime-bag in their pocket, and you'll keep the overall decline of the neighborhood at bay before the tent cities and the street derelicts can assert themselves.

Like I said - if you think different, then step up. Name me one redeeming quality of all the tent cities, sidewalk slums, flophouses, derelicts in rags, twitching half-naked junkies, etc. etc. You find a redeeming quality there, then you've got a valid argument for treating drug use as anything other than criminal. Otherwise, shut up and stop being part of the problem.

[I…….. Fudd]

So tell me you’re a groomer Marxist pedophile enthusiast without telling me you’re a groomer Marxist pedophile enthusiast.

[flag58]

High-tech cameras in Oakland?
Half will be stolen in a week.

[sarcasmic]

This is what happens when voters elect "tough on crime" politicians year after year after year.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

Are you calling Newsom a tough on crime politician?

That would be funny.

No, what happens, and I saw it in NYC in the early 90s. Democrats run the city into the ground. People get tired of it and then the rubber band effect kicks in. That’s how you get a Giuliani for two terms.

I can’t stand Giuliani, but it is undeniable that he turned the city around.

[sarcasmic]

No I'm not saying him specifically. I am saying that for decades people have been electing politicians who promise to be "tough on crime", or at the least politicians who promise to "do something about crime." Well, this is what something looks like.

[MWAocdoc]

"this new camera network will help us stop crime"

This part of the statement is a bald-faced lie on the face of it. While they might help the police solve some crimes, they will only prevent (not stop) crimes if the perps are quickly arrested, properly charged, and incarcerated or executed.

[Longtobefree]

"In California and Elsewhere, Fear of Crime Drives the Surveillance State"

More like this:
In California and Elsewhere, Fear of Crime is the excuse of the Surveillance State.
Fascists are going to do fascism.

[I…….. Fudd]

This is a large part of why these Soros boosted DA’s decline to prosecute serial offenders. And they excuse it in the name of ‘equity’, or whatever other Marxist buzzword they choose.

[CopaGent]

What happens when you elect Progressives?
You lose...

[SkippingDog]

Real crime is far lower than it was from the 50's through the 90's, but scaring old people about crime has always been one of the first chapters in the Republican play book.

Now that Republicans have made people fearful over basically nothing, Reason steps up to complain about the demands those unnecessary fears and resulting demands on elected officials to "do something about crime!" Same thing Trump likes to play.

[Beezard]

Can you Define “real crime” and how they measure it?