4 ms·
> First, they're taking a stand based on principal. I'm all for that, but taking a stand doesn't benefit the individual. Taking a stand is for the benefit of s
by chickenpotpie 4y ago
> First, they're taking a stand based on principal.
I'm all for that, but taking a stand doesn't benefit the individual. Taking a stand is for the benefit of society and requires the collaboration of society
> Assuming they're on good terms with their neighbors, this request should be pretty easy and quick to fulfill. If they're not, local PD can still get a warrant for the footage.
yes and that process is just objectively much more difficult than pulling the data from your own camera, which takes all of five seconds versus an order from a judge. That means they're life is worse.
- jjulius 4y ago>That means they're life is worse. It doesn't, though. If they are aware of the tradeoff (that in order to have the privacy they want, it will take longer to get any footage they may need), and they find that the tradeoff is worth it, then their life is not "worse". After all, that's why they made the decision to begin with - because they believe that their life is worse with them than without.
- chickenpotpie 4y agoBut it's not more privacy, that's the entire basis of what I'm saying. In this hypothetical, you're already monitored by cameras. The only difference is that the subject doesn't own them. The privacy is the exact same in both.
- jjulius 4y agoBy not taking part in it, they are not contributing to something they oppose. It's a moral choice for them. My fault for not making that clearer.
- nmeagent 4y agoOne person making such a principled choice may encourage another, who may encourage another, and so on. If enough of us make principled choices we don't necessarily have to live like this.