It could be with unlimited resources where those resources are millions of high res cameras everywhere. Which I am against, but it would not be unthinkable that most crimes, including the one you mentioned, would be solved fast(er) with unlmited resources.

I was robbed at knife point years ago; I got the license plate of the stolen 'getaway' car (it was at a gas station on the parking lot); there were cameras there (not in the parking lot but connected to the building), I reported it immediately, the police (later on camera) saw the car crossing a toll booth and then it went into some village. They found the car abandoned but never (at least not in time for me to be helpful) got the robbers. If everything, including the village, would be blanketed with high res cams, they would've caught them. The toll booth cams were too low res to identify anyone, just the car + numberplate.

I do believe we know how to solve most (traditional; financial / online crime can probably be similarly solved with enough resources and invasion of privacy) crime with unlimited resources; we don't have unlimited resources AND, at least in my country (where the robbery took place), we (still) have strict privacy laws and they are not allowed to hang cams on the streets of these places. Which I find a good thing by the way, but it doesn't help solve unobserved crimes like violence in off the beaten path alleyways and stuff like this.

What a dystopian world that would... Are you willing to trade all of your freedom for safety and security? Because that is what you are advocating

This is a very good example of the skimming reading example that is high up on the HN front page today. You did not read what I said nor did some downvoters; I say I am against this idea. BUT I was responding to someone saying 'we don't know how to solve most individual crimes even with unlimited resources'. I do not believe that is the case and this is one example of doing it, but no I am in no way advocating it which is what I say multiple times in my comment.

I actually say in the first line 'which I am against', so definitely not advocating it. Just saying; unlimited resources really do give us ways to solve most crimes but we might choose to value freedom and privacy over solving all crimes, which I hope happens although many places, like London/UK already have pretty much blanket camera networks.

You’re assuming the only limit is resources, instead of resources being to only limit I am minimizing.

Sure, if we where willing to implant GPS trackers and require people to upload their daily movements that would cost resources, but people’s unwillingness to be tracked like that (outside of cellphones) has nothing to do with resources. Thus a willingness to spend more money would not allow for that kind of tracking or even what you are suggesting.

PS: Low millions of cameras is also insufficient, you need billions just to cover major cities and even then people would focus on low coverage areas. You really need to track people for hours or even days to get positive identification. That takes more than a few cameras in the right places as plot demands.

Hence the unlimited :) But yeah, given that unlimited is not unlimited and people won't allow it (although govs will try) you are right; we have not much chance to solve every individual crime because we have no way (yet) of attacking the problem. Education and jobs seems to help, but that's prevention, not solving after it happened.