4 ms·

A camera at a place is fine. Cameras that watch your every move when in public are very bad. Not a hard concept if you think about it and hardly hyperbole.

by x5n1 11y ago

aninhumer 11y ago
People can already watch your every move in public. Cameras don't change that, they just make it more efficient. If the only reason we're comfortable with the police having a particular power is that they don't have the resources to use it in a way we don't like, then maybe we should reconsider letting them have that power?
- pjc50 11y ago
  There's a big difference between "for everything you do in public, at least one person witnesses it, but any one person only sees you for a short while" and "for everything you do in public, a specific person is aggregating that information".
  - aninhumer 11y ago
    The police can already do the latter by having officers follow you. As long as we're talking about individuals, I don't have a problem with letting them use cameras in the same way. The real thing we object to is dragnet surveillance, and we should think about how we limit police power accordingly. It might be the case that there's no effective way to prevent abuse of cameras in this way, and the only thing we can do is remove them. But if we reach that conclusion, it should be argued from principles, not kneejerk objection to cameras.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      But they're not using cameras in the same way. The cameras are always there. If police followed you 24/7 without sufficient justification you could sue for harassment. You have no recourse against the cameras.
      - pjc50 11y ago
        I'm not sure about that harrasment question; the case against the long-term embedded undercover police in the environmental direct action movement is still ongoing, I think.
- Programmatic 11y ago
  I see two main differences between traditional and cctv-enabled surveillance, the first being that traditional surveillance requires participation and the second being that traditional surveillance is deployed after suspicion. These are not minor differences; participation means equal opportunity and "fair play", and it can't be stored for future use and retroactively used against people for future perceived transgressions. There is a limit to the traditional surveillance that a society would bear, while the latter is nearly invisible. It is a powerful tool to be able to track your political enemies at any point in the past.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

A camera at a place is fine. Cameras that watch your every move when in public are very bad. Not a hard concept if you think about it and hardly hyperbole.

by x5n1 11y ago

A camera at a place is fine. Cameras that watch your every move when in public are very bad. Not a hard concept if you think about it and hardly hyperbole.

aninhumer 11y ago

People can already watch your every move in public. Cameras don't change that, they just make it more efficient. If the only reason we're comfortable with the police having a particular power is that they don't have the resources to use it in a way we don't like, then maybe we should reconsider letting them have that power?

pjc50 11y ago
There's a big difference between "for everything you do in public, at least one person witnesses it, but any one person only sees you for a short while" and "for everything you do in public, a specific person is aggregating that information".
- aninhumer 11y ago
  The police can already do the latter by having officers follow you. As long as we're talking about individuals, I don't have a problem with letting them use cameras in the same way. The real thing we object to is dragnet surveillance, and we should think about how we limit police power accordingly. It might be the case that there's no effective way to prevent abuse of cameras in this way, and the only thing we can do is remove them. But if we reach that conclusion, it should be argued from principles, not kneejerk objection to cameras.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    But they're not using cameras in the same way. The cameras are always there. If police followed you 24/7 without sufficient justification you could sue for harassment. You have no recourse against the cameras.
    - pjc50 11y ago
      I'm not sure about that harrasment question; the case against the long-term embedded undercover police in the environmental direct action movement is still ongoing, I think.
Programmatic 11y ago
I see two main differences between traditional and cctv-enabled surveillance, the first being that traditional surveillance requires participation and the second being that traditional surveillance is deployed after suspicion. These are not minor differences; participation means equal opportunity and "fair play", and it can't be stored for future use and retroactively used against people for future perceived transgressions. There is a limit to the traditional surveillance that a society would bear, while the latter is nearly invisible. It is a powerful tool to be able to track your political enemies at any point in the past.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]