3 ms·
Do they? I think cameras are like police, they are only for after something happens. Their presence can be a deterrent. This does not have to be a natural prog
by alphabettsy 6y ago
Do they? I think cameras are like police, they are only for after something happens. Their presence can be a deterrent.
This does not have to be a natural progression. That’s only true if we collectively decide we’re better off having centralized government surveillance.
Following any incident the police could do their jobs and respect the constitution by actually talking to people and requesting they assist rather than implementing mass-surveillance to avoid doing work.
- throwaway69123 6y agoDid you read the article? > Lumumba said the city would only be able to access the devices when crimes occur in those areas.
- alphabettsy 6y agoNo issue then since the government and police especially have a good track record of following policies and rules that’s aren’t the law. /s Only be able to access it when a crime occurs how? They’ll get a warrant or an officer says a crime occurred and asks for access?
- sangnoir 6y agoYou shouldn't be surprised to discover that the definition of "when" and "area" can be very flexible to maximize data collection. Car break in happened 6 months ago - good enough justify a crime having occurred. The break-in was 20 miles away? Well, that's driving distance, so it qualifies as the same "area". Look at your local PD's crime map and you will discover that this is a recipe for perpetual mass surveillance. Good luck keeping this footage from the NSA and FBI. I'm counting down the days to the first person who'll be busted and their Ring will be the first hostile "witness"