> I believe we should at-least be having conversations on safe and trust worthy surveillance. Yeah, we should, but we aren't. Or, at least, the people actually

> I believe we should at-least be having conversations on safe and trust worthy surveillance. Yeah, we should, but we aren't. Or, at least, the people actually involved in advancing the state of surveillance either aren't participating in such conversations, or are there for appearances only and don't really give a shit what the other participants have to say. You don't have to be paying much attention to see that there's basically zero accountability and zero effort to protect the public in what I guess I might call the surveillance-industrial complex. Believe me, I see the theoretical potential and value of surveillance for keeping people safe, but it's sort of like the idea of a benevolent robot dictator who makes perfect decisions to maximize good and minimize bad. Even a shaky first-pass implementation of such a thing is way beyond our capabilities, and if done even slightly wrong it could be a global catastrophe. Surveillance is a bit different because we're starting to have the technology to make it happen, but we don't have the social machinery necessary to do it effectively or responsibly.