4 ms·

> I can't imagine that the authors of the Constitution predicted always on, AI enabled facial and license plate recognition on every street corner in America.

> I can't imagine that the authors of the Constitution predicted always on, AI enabled facial and license plate recognition on every street corner in America. They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety - Ben Frank Iirc he was a founder

wredcoll 9mo ago
Sorry, which part of the facial recognition cameras is liberty?
- direwolf20 9mo ago
  The part where you have the liberty to deploy your own network of them
  - wredcoll 9mo ago
    Just like how it's equally illegal for the rich or poor to sleep under a bridge
    - direwolf20 9mo ago
      Was the Flock guy rich before he did Flock?
try_the_bass 9mo ago
I know this is supposed to be some kind of "gotcha", but I'm legitimately curious: what essential liberty is someone giving up being surveilled in public?
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- mistrial9 9mo ago
  public surveillance cameras erode personal privacy because there were no cameras with ID and tracking before. Widespread camera networks with tracking, ID and record keeping in a networked environment that is accessed by many varied agencies (e.g. federal immigration related) constitute new government surveillance. The US Constitution's Fourth Amendment provides explicit protection against unwarranted searches and seizures. Socially, constant monitoring creates a chilling effect on free behavior in public spaces, undermining individual liberty. For example, three teenagers dress oddly on Saturday night in association with a music culture. Authority officers show up with weapons, bright lights and harsh questions? That happens more than once. Is that "chilling" ? Mission creep and abuse are major concerns. Examples are documented where systems introduced for limited purposes — like traffic enforcement or terrorism prevention — expand into broader, unchecked surveillance by multiple agencies, commercially and maybe gray or black markets, too. Imagine cameras initially deployed in work zones may later be used citywide, enabling mass tracking of individuals without probable cause. Lack of oversight and due process further fuels opposition. Automated systems, such as those issuing speeding tickets without human review, deny individuals fair recourse. The absence of judicial warrants and transparency in deployment is seen as enabling government overreach and hidden revenue generation, disproportionately impacting low-income communities. Long-term record keeping may contain errors, omissions and misjudgements that remain uncorrected. Financial and civil costs are real. Surveillance systems are expensive, yet studies show limited effectiveness in actually preventing crime or terrorism. Civil libertarians argue that resources should instead support community-based safety solutions that respect constitutional freedoms. Ultimately, strict legal limits or outright bans on public video surveillance are in effect right now in many places, and those cases can be discussed among an informed voting public.
  - try_the_bass 9mo ago
    > Socially, constant monitoring creates a chilling effect on free behavior in public spaces, undermining individual liberty. I was skeptical from the first sentence, but I stopped here. This "chilling effect" is a favorite of privacy advocates, but it's purely a hypothetical. I have asked for and received no evidence of its practical effect in the real world, and can find plenty of evidence to the contrary. New York City, for example, is one of the most highly-surveilled cities in the US, and yet turnout for things like protests is seemingly unaffected. This is one of the centerpieces of your entire argument, yet is literally taken on faith.

wredcoll 9mo ago

Sorry, which part of the facial recognition cameras is liberty?

direwolf20 9mo ago
The part where you have the liberty to deploy your own network of them
- wredcoll 9mo ago
  Just like how it's equally illegal for the rich or poor to sleep under a bridge
  - direwolf20 9mo ago
    Was the Flock guy rich before he did Flock?

try_the_bass 9mo ago

I know this is supposed to be some kind of "gotcha", but I'm legitimately curious: what essential liberty is someone giving up being surveilled in public?

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
mistrial9 9mo ago
public surveillance cameras erode personal privacy because there were no cameras with ID and tracking before. Widespread camera networks with tracking, ID and record keeping in a networked environment that is accessed by many varied agencies (e.g. federal immigration related) constitute new government surveillance. The US Constitution's Fourth Amendment provides explicit protection against unwarranted searches and seizures. Socially, constant monitoring creates a chilling effect on free behavior in public spaces, undermining individual liberty. For example, three teenagers dress oddly on Saturday night in association with a music culture. Authority officers show up with weapons, bright lights and harsh questions? That happens more than once. Is that "chilling" ? Mission creep and abuse are major concerns. Examples are documented where systems introduced for limited purposes — like traffic enforcement or terrorism prevention — expand into broader, unchecked surveillance by multiple agencies, commercially and maybe gray or black markets, too. Imagine cameras initially deployed in work zones may later be used citywide, enabling mass tracking of individuals without probable cause. Lack of oversight and due process further fuels opposition. Automated systems, such as those issuing speeding tickets without human review, deny individuals fair recourse. The absence of judicial warrants and transparency in deployment is seen as enabling government overreach and hidden revenue generation, disproportionately impacting low-income communities. Long-term record keeping may contain errors, omissions and misjudgements that remain uncorrected. Financial and civil costs are real. Surveillance systems are expensive, yet studies show limited effectiveness in actually preventing crime or terrorism. Civil libertarians argue that resources should instead support community-based safety solutions that respect constitutional freedoms. Ultimately, strict legal limits or outright bans on public video surveillance are in effect right now in many places, and those cases can be discussed among an informed voting public.
- try_the_bass 9mo ago
  > Socially, constant monitoring creates a chilling effect on free behavior in public spaces, undermining individual liberty. I was skeptical from the first sentence, but I stopped here. This "chilling effect" is a favorite of privacy advocates, but it's purely a hypothetical. I have asked for and received no evidence of its practical effect in the real world, and can find plenty of evidence to the contrary. New York City, for example, is one of the most highly-surveilled cities in the US, and yet turnout for things like protests is seemingly unaffected. This is one of the centerpieces of your entire argument, yet is literally taken on faith.