3 ms·

There... > (especially since this is not really considered a crime) The seed is already planted: it is ok to display the face of a citizen, as long as he's a

There... > (especially since this is not really considered a crime) The seed is already planted: it is ok to display the face of a citizen, as long as he's a criminal. No debate about what kinds of public need does supersede the privacy rights of the individual citizen, or what kind of crimes would justify this kind of behavior from the part of the government. It is all "rulebreakers brought this on themselves" nowadays. All they have to do now is to lower (or I'd say, keep lowering) the threshold; jaywalking is right around the corner.

noscopeheadshot 9y ago
In reality, it doesn't even require that one be a criminal, merely a suspect.
zo1 9y ago
>"It is all "rulebreakers brought this on themselves" nowadays." Whether you display them publicly or not, if they broke the law, they should be punished. We can't live in some magical limbo situation where we simultaneously have laws and not enforce them most of the time. I.e.: If the tech is there to apply the laws that have currently been "agreed" by the public, then there should be no question or overriding factors to consider. Talk of privacy and "individual rights" is just distracting fluff in that context. We've already decided that certain actions merit punishment. We're just now upset that the coming omnipotent presence of surveillance can actually make us adhere to the things we've been whacking other people over the head with. You know, the ones that "got caught" doing it. Either that, or simply start repealing all these non-sense laws that we don't actually want to punish people for. The third alternative is a gigantic mess of exceptions and "buts" that want to enable us to eat our surveillance cake, and sometimes keep it. Make no mistake, that is exactly what the "privacy" folks are advocating for. More bureaucracy.

3 ms·

There... > (especially since this is not really considered a crime) The seed is already planted: it is ok to display the face of a citizen, as long as he's a

by crpatino 9y ago

noscopeheadshot 9y ago
In reality, it doesn't even require that one be a criminal, merely a suspect.
zo1 9y ago
>"It is all "rulebreakers brought this on themselves" nowadays." Whether you display them publicly or not, if they broke the law, they should be punished. We can't live in some magical limbo situation where we simultaneously have laws and not enforce them most of the time. I.e.: If the tech is there to apply the laws that have currently been "agreed" by the public, then there should be no question or overriding factors to consider. Talk of privacy and "individual rights" is just distracting fluff in that context. We've already decided that certain actions merit punishment. We're just now upset that the coming omnipotent presence of surveillance can actually make us adhere to the things we've been whacking other people over the head with. You know, the ones that "got caught" doing it. Either that, or simply start repealing all these non-sense laws that we don't actually want to punish people for. The third alternative is a gigantic mess of exceptions and "buts" that want to enable us to eat our surveillance cake, and sometimes keep it. Make no mistake, that is exactly what the "privacy" folks are advocating for. More bureaucracy.