The Sword and Laser discussion

I will not put any spoilers because some people might not read it.
I liked the science behind the story, I liked the world concept behind the story. I really liked the character arcs of both POV characters. It was refreshing to see the ending that doesn't end in a typical 'story grid' or 'Save the cat' recipe.
I will definitely read more from this author. I'm not surprised that the book was nominated for awards. It really deserved it.

I am not far in, but so far I like some of the projection into how the future could look like and am happy that our protagonists have families (and family problems).

One sentence I stumbled over was - murder has become unpopular due to cameras everywhere.

Sorry, no. Maybe premeditated Murder, but crimes of passion, revenge, religiously motivated etc. are rarely influenced by the possibility of getting caught. Terrorists would be actually super happy to have even more coverage of their deeds, as is reflected in the first attempt where the shields even explain that the protestors like high profile venues.

Guess what, terrorists do to, and they rarely care about survival/getting caught. So the very first scenario should not be suprising to anyone.

I will say, I read the first chapter last night and it seemed like a good hook in. The thing that stopped me last night was a cat but I look forward to doing more tonight!

Nils wrote: "One sentence I stumbled over was - murder has become unpopular due to cameras everywhere.

Sorry, no. Maybe premeditated Murder, but crimes of passion, revenge, religiously motivated etc. are rarely influenced by the possibility of getting caught....."

I'm enjoying the book so far, and worldbuilding has in general been excellent but I agree that the idea that murder and "real" violence are essentially eradicated by the pervasive cameras doesn't add up at all to me.

Nils, I agree with you. Cameras wouldn’t stop murders.
As you mentioned terrorists do live streaming of their actions.
My guess is that author was hoping humanity is a bit better than it really is.

Elements of this book remind me of Futuristic Violence and Fancy Suits, and I feel like these two books are at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of imagining public reaction to constant surveillance. If I’m remembering correctly, and I wasn’t a fan of the book, so I might be being unkind, but I think Futuristic Violence had a lack of empathy problem, with the general reaction to violence being ‘oh hey, cooooool’, rather than the idea presented here where people will shy from committing violence as it will make them look bad. As with most things, the truth is more likely in the middle of these extremes, though, it occurs to me tht even in Machinehood, you gotta get a little hurt to get those tip jars filling. Maybe humanity is doomed!

Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth wrote: "Elements of this book remind me of Futuristic Violence and Fancy Suits, and I feel like these two books are at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of imagining public reaction to constant survei..."

Interesting. I didn't read futuristic Violence and Fancy Suits. I'll have to check that book. Thanks for recommendation.

Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth wrote: "Elements of this book remind me of Futuristic Violence and Fancy Suits, and I feel like these two books are at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of imagining public reaction to constant survei..."

Now, when I got thanks for the recommendation out of the way. Let gets back to our subject.
Public surveillance is slowly going now mainstream. And knowing people there will be misuses and consequences no one even considered.
I mean, just think, in 'the 60th and '70th of last century SciFi writers thought that public trackers will be forced upon us by the government. And look around, we are all carrying one of those devices in our pocket, aware that our data is collected and used for profit and who knows what, but not really willing to get rid of convenience.
Let us face it. We, humans, suck at predicting the future.
When I think about the future, I see facial recognition used more for ads. Something like that scene in Minority Report when MC enters some public space and personalized ads start jumping at him.
For murders and other crimes, well we'll see. I often wonder how much publicity factors in today's mass murders.

I mean... look at London which has tons of CCTV cameras all over. So to many US cities (though not that dense yet). The consider all the video doorbell things that people have. And as Ruth says, smartphone cameras.

Has this changed much? Cops still shoot black kids even though they're being caught on camera. More prosaically, porch pirates steals packages right off the doorsteps of people, even though they get videoed.

Rick wrote: "I mean... look at London which has tons of CCTV cameras all over. So to many US cities (though not that dense yet). The consider all the video doorbell things that people have. And as Ruth says, sm..."

Yeah. I lived in the UK. Those CCTV cameras are basically useless. Several times crime happened to people I know, (stolen car, break-in house) and the police couldn't do anything. Couldn't identify anyone. Criminals just pull the hoodie over their faces and call it good. And it is good if police cannot see the face clearly enough to identify the person.
In the USA, some states have a law that requires two personal consent for recording. This means that even when you record something, it cannot be admitted as evidence in court.
Where I'm going with this? Well, many of us do not even know what kind of complications exist with current data collection and face recognition. And that makes it harder to correctly predict everything during worldbuilding.
I'm happy when a writer is mostly correct and mostly developed a reasonable future.