> Violent crime could be virtually eradicated. Or violent crime might continue unabated while a large taxpayer funded workforce uses the surveillance infrastru

> Violent crime could be virtually eradicated. Or violent crime might continue unabated while a large taxpayer funded workforce uses the surveillance infrastructure the taxpayer paid for to look at hot girls. I'm all for sanctioning anti-social behavior when it directly harms innocent people. My problem is this: The surveillance proponent claims to have a solution for some societal ill: Street violence, red light running, smuggling of explosives into airplanes, etc. The proponent benefits, personally, regardless of how effective the solution is: They sell the cameras, or the organization that employs them gets revenue from penalties imposed on those who are caught by the solution. Sometimes the proponent isn't personally subject to the new privacy invading system: Proponents of invasive airport screening who fly private. > In the example from the story, it's clear that our collective welfare could be increased by analyzing reams of restricted data. Even with this relatively benign example, I see the same case of perverse incentives. Did we really need to look at tax returns to learn that better teachers have a positive impact? Did our collective welfare improve at all here, or did the researchers just help their own careers more than anything else? > I contend that it's more useful to look at the discrete harms that flow from disclosure of specific information. This question is like asking how people could be harmed by leaving their keys in the ignition while they run a 5 minute errand. The potential for harm depends on the circumstance of the individual. A multimillionaire leaves his car outside the country club with his driver in it. A poor man leaves his car outside 7-Eleven. Now imagine the poor man is required to appear in court in 45 minutes for a child custody hearing. There's a significant difference in the possible discrete harms that flow from those situations. I therefore contend that it's more useful to keep things discreet, unless the individual explicitly opts to release the information.