Report Inappropriate Comments

If we are going to simply transcribe company advertising copy as reporting ("proprietary devices and cloud-based software reduces crime by over 70 percent"), maybe we should at least ask ourselves a couple of obvious questions: first, what is meant by "crime"? It is very easy to claim high marks for my camera system if I define crime as "those things which my camera can detect." Review of website content and Fox news reporting on Flock camera systems indicates this is exactly what the company is doing. Second, what do we mean by "reduces?" My understanding of the term "reduces" means that there would be "less crime" than before the cameras were installed. But are the cameras actually causing less crime to be committed, or just providing a means to track vehicles that may have been associated with a crime already a statistic? Nowhere does the company establish, demonstrate, or prove a causal connection between the installation of their equipment and the incidence of "crime' (wage theft is a crime--a crime that costs working Americans more than all other property crimes combined, by a wide margin. Does their camera system "reduce" that crime statistic?). The Herald should be very skeptical of industry claims such as these, and should challenge them in the interest of reporting rather than stenography.