4 ms·
I'm torn about this. Surveillance by people is expensive, grueling, and hard to hide. If I imagine police wanting to replace a team of people surveilling some p
by aeorgnoieang 9y ago
I'm torn about this. Surveillance by people is expensive, grueling, and hard to hide. If I imagine police wanting to replace a team of people surveilling some person or people or place with a camera, I don't notice any outrage.
It's more the ubiquity of surveillance that seems unreasonable, but, like a lot of things, there's no clear dividing line between what should be allowed and what should be prohibited. And it's even more complicated by the ability of, e.g. police, to pool multiple cameras owned by private individuals or groups.
- thomastjeffery 9y agoWhy do we need to constantly surveil people? What happened to trust? When people do illegal things to other people or their property, that is when law enforcement should get involved. We shouldn't just watch people waiting to see them do something that we have defined as "wrong". We should react to the things that people do wrong, and educate people about how to go about their lives without harming others. > Surveillance by people is expensive, grueling, and hard to hide. Laws are designed for a law enforcement body that has these inadequacies. If we start enforcing them in a different way that does not have these limitations, the aspects of those laws that were designed to make up for those inadequacies suddenly become harsh and constrictive.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago> If I imagine police wanting to replace a team of people surveilling some person or people or place with a camera, I don't notice any outrage. Here you are talking about "warranted" surveillance. Traffic cameras are warrantless.