4 ms·

I don't really see a problem with this, as long as it is only used after an incident and only available to law enforcement. Of course it's a slippery slope, fir

by fy20 5y ago

I don't really see a problem with this, as long as it is only used after an incident and only available to law enforcement. Of course it's a slippery slope, first this, then something else, but that's a different story. If you want to drive a 2+ ton vehicle that can easily kill or seriously injure innocent people, then you should be responsible for your actions and dangerous driving should be taken seriously. In many EU countries there is already so much CCTV that the authorities know exactly where you are driving and how fast (average over a distance) you are driving, so this doesn't really change anything there.

smitty1e 5y ago
> as long as it is only used after an incident and only available to law enforcement. I submit that this is Chekhov's_gun[1]. The only means of keeping the data safe from unforeseen usage is never keep it in the first place. One elusive flavor of wisdom is the idea that it's OK to leave things be and not optimize them. Call it the "Technocrat Temptation", but to squeeze the entropy out of life is to beget hell on Earth. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun
throwawaylinux 5y ago
If we had the technology to implant tamper-proof devices in people that recorded location, audio and video, and some basic bio data, but that data could only be be made available to law enforcement under specific circumstances, would you really see a problem with making that mandatory for everybody? It would be a great tool for crime solving. Almost all violent crimes and property crimes could be immediately solved by data mining when and where a person was killed or injured or property was damaged or stolen, who else was around. Why would it be a different story?