3 ms·
This probably won't be a popular opinion on Hacker News, but it is it possible to compromise with a limited amount of mass surveillance? I believe it was LA th
by Houshalter 11y ago
This probably won't be a popular opinion on Hacker News, but it is it possible to compromise with a limited amount of mass surveillance?
I believe it was LA that had a plane fly above the city and record 24/7. It was just enough resolution to make out cars and people, but not identify anyone. Less invasive than security cameras in that sense. And I don't think it was live. It was just something the police could go back to and look at after a crime as committed, and see where the criminals went or came from.
Given some conditions, like the recordings be deleted after a few days, and that it requires a warrant to look at, I think that would be ok.
- x1798DE 11y agoWhy? This sort of thing is flashy but not a real danger you need to be concerned about (think shark attack not car crash), so even if you take the premise that mass surveillance could stop it (dubious), it's probably not worth paying much for, certainly not any abridgements of our rights.
- Houshalter 11y agoI mostly agree. This would be more useful for everyday crime than terrorism. And I think that makes it worth it.