4 ms·
I think it was on a post about FBI surveillance, someone pointed out that one of the big advantages of all of these surveillance methods are not just that they
by 6AA4FD 6y ago
I think it was on a post about FBI surveillance, someone pointed out that one of the big advantages of all of these surveillance methods are not just that they may miss some cases, but that they are much cheaper than lawful interventions. I would venture to say that if we spent more on pursuing issues that actually matter (not most drug crimes) we would be able to do better while ensuring a greater general level of privacy than we do right now, while also solving more problems.
edit: I realize I wasn't clear what the more serious problems I'm referencing are. They are human trafficking, murder, domestic abuse and so on.
- opportune 6y agoYou know what, you're right. What would be even more effective is if each person had a camera and microphone embedded into their bodies that uploaded all data directly to the government. Then it would be impossible to commit a crime and get away with it, and we would need far less police!
- wwright 6y agoI think the comment you are responding to was effectively advocating for LESS surveillance, for what it’s worth.
- 6AA4FD 6y agoI'm saying that law enforcement probably doesn't need such intrusive surveillance, and that better results without violations of civil liberties could be acheived if we spent more money on it (or spent our current outlays better).