5 ms·

Pervasive surveillance data relating to a suspect could be turned over to the defence and could be used to exonerate the innocent. More Surveillance will proba

• bilbo0s 7y ago
  Why would they do that? We already have old, broken down, and innocent guys walking out of prison 31 years after someone at the innocence project collected the exculpatory evidence that the state was supposed to have handed over to the defense 31 years earlier. Why would the state be more likely to fulfill their obligations to justice in this regard when that evidence is digital? I guess I just don't see that behavior all of a sudden changing because cameras are involved. In fact, cameras have been involved in the past, and the videos have still not made it to the defense in discovery. Long story short, all else is definitely not equal. When it is, I'm sure a lot more people will exhibit less discomfort at the idea of the authorities retaining film in perpetuity on everything they do 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
  • spaced-out 7y ago
    Let's say you were charged with a crime, and you knew you weren't there and that you had your cellphone with you? Wouldn't you want to see if one of the many surveillance systems that track you could help prove your innocence?
    • LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
      While in theory this sounds reasonable, practice has shown time and time again that just for that crucial moment the cams were down, or for some technical reason the recordings have been erased. What do you propose against that? Complete audit proof via Blockchain and recorded on [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-DISC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-DISC and stored in the [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center ? What else are you dreaming of? As it is, and always has been, all this stuff is to the disadvantage of the individual, not lessenig the burden of proof. Anything else is PROPAGANDA!
      • LinuxBender 7y ago
        I believe this may have occurred recently in a high profile case with Mr. Jefferey Epstein? At least, that is the gist I took away from some discussions on Joe Rogan's podcast about it.
• WaitWaitWha 7y ago
  The key word is "could", but even in a optimistic view, this never happened before. In all State's where surveillance was increased to improve law abidance, the long term effect, albeit with some crime reduction, was an oppressive class that determined how others have to live, yet they themselves did not.
• EternalAugust 7y ago
  IMO the fundamental problem we have today isn't that the particular techniques are bad, it's that the system is easily gamed and incentive structures lead to law enforcement simply acting in bad faith a lot of the time. They just want to put you in prison, irrespective of innocence, and they'll use/omit whatever data points they can to do it. The problem isn't the techniques, it's that law enforcement in America seems to now be built more around profit than law abidence... And I doubt increased surveillance put in for the best of intentions wouldn't ultimately become coopted somehow by these interests too.