3 ms·
The issue with this use of technology is it creates an air of science to investigating large groups of people. It's easy to imagine a world where if they find
by dannypgh 8y ago
The issue with this use of technology is it creates an air of science to investigating large groups of people.
It's easy to imagine a world where if they find someone that's likely a first (or second!) cousin of a rapist, that they then surveil the entire family and use that as evidence for warrants or other investigative tactics. In this case they cross referenced the familial identification with other factors, but imagine if they hadn't? They might have put a tail on everyone who shares a common grandparent or great-grandparent.
- maxerickson 8y agoHow high should the bar be for doing some surveillance?
- dannypgh 8y agoLegally: This depends on the type of surveillance. Reading someone's first class mail requires a warrant. Posting a car on public streets to observe them requires nothing. Ethically: law enforcement finds most violations of the law in places they look, so if it's unfair where they're looking, it's easy for that to translate into unfair outcomes. A society where police are watching every Capulet but not investigating the Montagues is one where most of the arrests will be of Capulets, regardless of who is actually committing crimes. Therefore, when talking in populations, surveillance approximates punishment and familial surveillance approximates collective punishment of an extended family.