4 ms·

The problem with surveillance is that law enforcement is not acting in your interests as an individual. Your image, captured on camera near a crime scene, becom

The problem with surveillance is that law enforcement is not acting in your interests as an individual. Your image, captured on camera near a crime scene, becomes evidence of your guilt. It puts the onus on you to prove your innocence, and if law enforcement is lazy, fallible, stupid, or you just get unlucky, you're going to prison for a crime you didn't commit. Or you're going to get tangled up in a legal defense that could cost you years worth of paychecks to prove your innocence. "I've got nothing to hide" is not a valid opinion to have with regards to surveillance - the two options are "I have information to share with the state" and "I do not wish to share information with the state. " Since the state is almost universally in an adversarial relationship with citizens, it never makes sense for a citizen to share information with the state unless compelled to (the processes of state compulsion have stricter rules and precedents that have higher levels of protections against casual abuse. A lawyer can recommend 5th amendment if necessary when compelled to testify. ) https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE I think the side of private photography is much simpler. If you're in public you should expect to be seen and/or recorded. Public places are places where you have zero expectation of privacy. We should celebrate the art that comes from public photography. I think we're long overdue for a sweeping, constitutional level reform of information privacy rights that protect citizens from abuses and reinforce modern norms around recording in public. It's obvious that we're living under the panopticon, so we need a system that accounts for that.

wahern 5y ago
> Your image, captured on camera near a crime scene, becomes evidence of your guilt. It puts the onus on you to prove your innocence, and if law enforcement is lazy, fallible, stupid, or you just get unlucky, you're going to prison for a crime you didn't commit. Or you're going to get tangled up in a legal defense that could cost you years worth of paychecks to prove your innocence. This is literally just FUD, albeit you're as much a victim of it as you are a vector. As someone who was recently on a jury for a criminal trial that was based almost entirely on copious video camera surveillance footage (no, not that trial), a jury that acquitted the defendant of all charges (almost immediately, save for a few hangers on, including myself), your fears seem largely unfounded. Both the law and the judgement of humans heavily emphasize intent and motivation, and camera footage is neutral in that regard. Admittedly, it's no picnic being subject to state-sponsored prosecution. But that was always the case, and despite all the FUD rooted in an unhealthily extreme anti-authoritarian sentiment (partially a product of our victim culture) that leaves little room for civil society to function, there's still conspicuously few claims, let alone evidence, that camera footage will result in a greater prevalence of false prosecutions, particularly for non-traffic offenses.

wahern 5y ago

> Your image, captured on camera near a crime scene, becomes evidence of your guilt. It puts the onus on you to prove your innocence, and if law enforcement is lazy, fallible, stupid, or you just get unlucky, you're going to prison for a crime you didn't commit. Or you're going to get tangled up in a legal defense that could cost you years worth of paychecks to prove your innocence. This is literally just FUD, albeit you're as much a victim of it as you are a vector. As someone who was recently on a jury for a criminal trial that was based almost entirely on copious video camera surveillance footage (no, not that trial), a jury that acquitted the defendant of all charges (almost immediately, save for a few hangers on, including myself), your fears seem largely unfounded. Both the law and the judgement of humans heavily emphasize intent and motivation, and camera footage is neutral in that regard. Admittedly, it's no picnic being subject to state-sponsored prosecution. But that was always the case, and despite all the FUD rooted in an unhealthily extreme anti-authoritarian sentiment (partially a product of our victim culture) that leaves little room for civil society to function, there's still conspicuously few claims, let alone evidence, that camera footage will result in a greater prevalence of false prosecutions, particularly for non-traffic offenses.