4 ms·
As with all things, there are pros and cons to Singapore's approach. Having better surveillance is a tool which can be used for good and bad, contingent on cir
by danny_codes 5y ago
As with all things, there are pros and cons to Singapore's approach.
Having better surveillance is a tool which can be used for good and bad, contingent on circumstance.
For example, I live in the SF Bay Area. One highway near me (880) suffers from a very large amount of excessive speeding. A system capable of identifying speeders and charging them for their actions would be a boon for public safety. So surveillance here would be a net benefit to society.
However, surveillance being used to prevent alternative ideas from being discussed (alternative solutions to problems or alternative philosophies) is less clearly positive. On the one hand, being able to prevent bold-face misinformation (see a Trump speech for an example) could be beneficial. Preventing reasoned debate, however, detracts from society.
I don't think luddite responses to surveillance technology are effective. The technology is here. Pragmatically, its growing use in society cannot be prevented. We should instead focus on trying to maximize the good aspects of surveillance while minimizing the bad.
As an aside, I find one-sided pieces like this one off-putting. I understand the desire to spin a narrative, but in focusing exclusively on the negatives of the Singaporean approach we (the readers) are left wondering about the other side to the story.
- deepnotderp 5y ago> . A system capable of identifying speeders and charging them for their actions would be a boon for public safety. So surveillance here would be a net benefit to society. Then you will be back complaining that "the traffic is much worse now" ;) Chesterton's fence and all
- danny_codes 5y agoI assume you're being contrarian. It's hard to imagine a sane person who opposes effective enforcement of reckless driving laws.
- inter_netuser 5y agoWhat's excessive speeding? There is fairly robust evidence that prevailing natural speed of traffic is safest and limits that aren't appropriate for the road often reduce safety, as it is the speed differential that's dangerous, not so much the absolute number. If you set limits too low for driving conditions, you in fact endanger people by policy, instead of helping. It's a valid and commonly raised defence against speeding in many states. Reckless driving is distinct from excessive speeding all, probably best not to mix up two very different things. Reckless charge can happen at any speed, even 1km/hr, but it does require proof of intent, and is a strict liability offence. speeding is an absolute liability offence without the mens rhea element.
- inter_netuser 5y agoYou are praising Singapore, where death penalties for 500g of some psychoactive substances seem to be effective. If they were able to eradicate a technology we had for 5000+ years, I'm sure a death penalty for installing surveillance equipment/cameras could very well go a long way in Bay Area as well. Your statements seem contradictory. Why wouldn't a death penalty for all Ring owners work?