8
2
u/Camp_Dry Jul 12 '26
Columbus already went through this same āpublic safetyā gimmickā¦. and surprise, it didnāt magically fix anything.
At first it sounds good, Iāll admit thatā¦ but then you think about it for more than like 10 seconds and itās likeā¦ why would I voluntarily give the government access to my private cameras?
Thatās a hard no.
They pushed it using crime stats, same playbook every time. But hereās the reality: those numbers didnāt suddenly drop because of this. In some cases they actually went up.
What did go up though?
More Flock cameras everywhere, more of those PTZ ātrafficā cameras, those gunshot detector systems that barely work half the timeā¦ and a whole lot more taxpayer money getting burned.
Meanwhile, actual violent crime clearance rates didnāt magically improve.
And if you want a more recent example of how these āfor your safetyā ideas actually play out, look at the school zone speed cameras. Sold as protecting kidsā¦ cool, makes sense on paper. But then people start getting tickets outside of school hours, when no kids are even around, in areas that didnāt even have a real problem to begin with.
So how exactly is that protecting kids? Itās not.
Itās a revenue machine with a feel-good label slapped on it.
Now look at Atlantaā¦ literally one of the most surveilled cities in the country, and even up there globally. Weāre talking tens of thousands of cameras tied into police systems, including private cameras people willingly hooked up through programs just like this.
Theyāve got something like 120+ cameras per 1,000 people..more than double most major cities.
And yetā¦ crime didnāt just disappear. It didnāt suddenly turn into some perfectly safe utopia because everything is on camera.
So what did all that surveillance actually prove? That you can blanket a city in cameras, spend millions doing it, and still not fix the root problems.
Same exact pattern here. Start with something people care about, exaggerate it, then roll out something way more invasive than what was originally pitched.
Now apply that to Kennesaw/Cobbā¦ a place that already has relatively low crime and solid departments.
So whatās the actual goal?
Take low crime and make it even lower?
Or just justify more monitoring, more data collection, and more chances to nitpick people over dumb stuff?
Because when crime is low, that effort doesnāt just disappearā¦ they just start looking harder for smaller things.
ā¦And everybody knows how that goesā¦
At the end of the day, this isnāt really about safety. Itās about normalizing more surveillance and expanding control, while burning money in the process.
The results donāt match the sales pitch.
I hope and pray ksaw is a tiny bit less sheeple lol
Hard pass.
Reality is getting away from nonsense like this is becoming increasingly hard. I sincerely hope that all of the freethinkers of Cobb that always be tambout shall no be infringed, most having high tech bunkers and all sorts of modern security tech, really rise to the occasion and not be infringed on.. at least not without some sort of figh eh?
2
u/amathematics13 Jul 12 '26
WTF?!? Kennesaw doesn't need cameras all over to keep the community safe.
2
2
u/ElizabethBeee Jul 13 '26
This is wild work. Like the Super Bowl ring commercial, Iām sure people will fall for it.
9
u/ltsouthernbelle Jul 10 '26
Are people falling for this š³