2 ms·

The argument for public safety though has been pretty overwhelming. Britain just scored a big win in the novichok poisoning case by being able to trace the mov

• tomsthumb 8y ago
  As long as the known wins are bigger than the known abuses. There’s also the question of whether people understand and care about potential, or if it would need to happen first.
• lxmorj 8y ago
  This is a trap. You can't just say "well the wins are worth it at the moment" and not consider what happens when someone else - possibly with antithetical values to yours - inherits that power.
  • bb88 8y ago
    Your argument is an appeal for more personal liberty. And that's an honorable argument to make. If, however, crime reduces your personal liberty to the point where you are uncomfortable walking outside, then cameras (and facial recognition software) will seem to add more liberty than it takes away. People buy products like Ring and security cameras for this very reason, they want to feel safe. You might say, "Okay, but that's security theater. The real issue is because Donald J Trump, or an unchecked NSA might use them for more nefarious reasons. And it's not even clear they work to reduce crime..." At which point the average person says, "I just want to feel safe at night when I walk the dog. And frankly, the investment in cameras are worth it if they help catch Russian spies..."
• pletnes 8y ago
  Catching one russian spy? That’s not even worth the hardware cost of the cameras installed in the UK.