8 ms·

This is the big problem with mass surveillance as a whole. With enough time, they'll find some pretext to bring you in, even if the original crime they want you

This is the big problem with mass surveillance as a whole. With enough time, they'll find some pretext to bring you in, even if the original crime they want you for is weak. This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down. Lives will be completely derailed, police and judges will not be held accountable. The wrongful arrestees will still be in debt to the local jail and court for various fees they racked up. Trust in the justice system will continue to degrade and more and more violence will be used against people to maintain order. We hold police to high standards for search/arrest because they have the monopoly on violence. Even if they're wrong, you can't shoot back. Even if they're slamming your loved ones into the pavement, breaking their teeth, you cannot kick the cop in the head or else they have permission to murder you both. Mass surveillance is a loophole to this contract.

cucumber3732842 2mo ago
>This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down. Yes. That's exactly the point. Comply with every little thing, no matter how absurd, or else your life will unravel. Look through a historical comment (especially from back when "big data" was the buzzword) thread on any subject where HN is pro regulation and pro government. This is EXACTLY what the useful idiots want. They want some NYC liquor store owner to pay a hundred grand to the state because that one time he visited NH he loaded up his van with tax free henny to sell back home. They want that exurban undeveloped lot owner to lose their house for letting their buddy with a tree service dump there and fill in a few hundred square feet over the course of half a decade. They want some random industrial employer that makes nuts and bolts or something to be fined millions of dollars because their maintenance employees spray painted a piece of equipment in the parking lot without the PPE and pollution compliance measures befitting a commercial paint operation. They want the jackboot on the throat of everyone who steps out of line on any axis that they care about. They see the way the banking industry tries to stay away from weed, porn and guns because the upside isn't worth the risk of being combed over by the enforcers. And instead of seeing it as cautionary, they see it as a model that needs to be scaled down to the small businesses and the lowly individual peasants. Of course they don't lay it out so plainly. They use words like "negative externality" and "antisocial" and "dis-incentivize" to whitewash it but that doesn't change what it is.
- cmrdporcupine 2mo ago
  All very terrifying but you're building a "Hollow Man" by using an "Appeal to Extremes". Instead of arguing against actual regulatory policy, you are mind-reading malicious intent into hypothetical scenarios (and people) you just invented. Or real examples that you're broadstroking against a "they" which is somehow "HN." I am not sure how you can justify trying to paint so broad a stroke across an entire community, or feel justified in creating a bucket of "useful idiots" into which you just throw whole classes of unnamed people without engaging with any particular argument. I get you're angry, my man, but maybe you should question exactly who it is you're angry with.
  - blamecanada69 2mo ago
    We don't need Canadians telling Americans that we're wrong to worry about American police, or that we need to be more specific with our concerns. American police kill over 1,000 civilians and 10,000 dogs per year. They routinely wrongly arrest people, and create life-ruining situations, especially as American workers do not enjoy as much job protection as Canadian workers. I get that you want to be offended by his post, but maybe you should question why exactly you're offended at a post that has, at its heart, a lot of actual reality about life in America.
    - cmrdporcupine 2mo ago
      Because said person is sitting here saying "HN is stupid", it has nothing to do with the police, but the audience he's going after. Read what he wrote and I wrote again. Nobody is excusing American police. I'm griping about his attempts to smear random people on this forum. Nowhere did I tell you you're wrong to worry about American police. FFS, I worry about American police and I don't live there. Hence why I won't even go there.
      - cucumber3732842 2mo ago
        >Because said person is sitting here saying "HN is stupid", it has nothing to do with the police, but the audience he's going after. I said that if you go into policy discussions where HN is pro regulation you can see all sorts of commenters cheering for the pro-jackboot takes and peddlers thereof. It's a subtle distinction between that and "the whole place is stupid" but it's there. > I'm griping about his attempts to smear random people on this forum. Want me to name names? I can go right down the leader board saying who wants jackboot applied and on what policy axis. I don't think that's productive.
bko 2mo ago
Maybe they can start enforcing the law when it comes to blatant offenders that terrorize large cities. Illegal blocking of sidewalk selling fake handbags, selling untaxed marijuana on street corners, violating traffic laws on e-bikes. A lot of wood to chop before they get to my jay walking so I think I’m safe for the time being. But I welcome more enforcement
- daun_gee 2mo ago
  [dead]
- contagiousflow 2mo ago
  > terrorize large cities Oh I wonder what kind of terror he's talking about > Illegal blocking of sidewalk selling fake handbags Jesus Christ. If this is what brings you to a surveillance state with open arms maybe you should talk to people outside of your bubble.
  - bko 2mo ago
    It doesn't have to be like this. Why do you accept it? Serious question. You don't need a surveillance state. How many indignities do you stomach for what exactly? Some false sense of freedom? Freedom to buy illegal unlicensed untaxed weed? Freedom to get run over by a delivery ebike?
    - natebc 2mo ago
      [dead]
    - Windchaser 2mo ago
      > How many indignities do you stomach for what exactly? People selling handbags neither threatens my dignity nor makes me indignant. When I think of "terrorize", I think of things like.. y'know, people strapped with explosives, blowing up buses full of civilians. Or something like the Rape of Nanking, where Japanese army killed and raped their way across the city. The Japanese terrorized the city, literally instilling a nightmarish-level of fear. I can't place "they're terrorizing me by selling handbags" anywhere in the same universe. If you're genuinely frightened by this, I would like to gently suggest you talk this through with a therapist.
giantg2 2mo ago
"Even if they're wrong, you can't shoot back." Depends on the situation. You'd absolutely be arrested. Get in front of a jury of 12 people and you might have a chance if you have enough evidence for a self-defense claim and the cop acting outside of the law.
- saghm 2mo ago
  Honestly getting arrested would be lucky. If recent years have shown anything, they don't need to be particularly concerned about removing you from the picture more permanently regardless of the circumstances.
- BeefySwain 2mo ago
  Good luck living long enough to see a jury
  - giantg2 2mo ago
    The choice in this hypothetical scenario is to be killed initially through the unlawful use of force or potentially be killed at some later time before reaching trial.
- insanitybit 2mo ago
  Only if the jury believes in nullification, which isn't common. The jury is instructed to follow the law. The selection process asks "even if you think they were right, if it's against the law and they were guilty would you issue a guilty verdict?" and people answer "yes" consistently.
  - btbuildem 2mo ago
    No one who has answered "no" made it thru the selection process, so there might be some survivor bias at play here.
    - insanitybit 2mo ago
      I'm referring to the first selection process.
segmondy 2mo ago
Someone that is innocent is going to get killed soon because flock flagged them incorrectly. I recall reading the auto journalist that got flagged for a stolen car while test driving a car. We have seen how often pull over/arrests can derail when a stupid cop that is aggressive pulls out their weapon first, fires fast and then investigates last. An innocent person that reacts wrongly is eventually going to make the news. :-(
- dgellow 2mo ago
  That might already have happened for all we know
- ericcholis 2mo ago
  https://www.jalopnik.com/2219072/auto-journalist-harassed-by-cops-flock-cameras-working-correctly/ https://www.jalopnik.com/2219072/auto-journalist-harassed-by... Link for the curious
  - GoofGarage 2mo ago
    Link straight from the source (the actual journalist) https://www.thedrive.com/news/how-flock-cameras-wrongly-tracked-me-for-days-over-stolen-plates-and-sent-police-after-me https://www.thedrive.com/news/how-flock-cameras-wrongly-trac...
    - downrightmike 2mo ago
      flock's out, glocks out
- skeeter2020 2mo ago
  Woman with SUV filled with minors pulled out by cops and handcuffed on the ground in Colorado based on flock ID'ing the license plate of stolen... motorcycle with same number (but from a different state). You can't make this shit up. https://www.kxlf.com/news/america-in-crisis/aurora-police-detain-black-family-after-mistaking-their-vehicle-as-stolen https://www.kxlf.com/news/america-in-crisis/aurora-police-de...
bastardoperator 2mo ago
How do the municipalities "own" this data if anyone from any agency outside of a jurisdiction is allowed to access the data?
- skeeter2020 2mo ago
  worse than that, federal agencies - which can't access it directly - do so via their "law enforcement partners". So now you've got DHS and ICE using it for their own pseudo-law activities.
MengerSponge 2mo ago
Necessary reading: "Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything is a Crime" https://ir.law.utk.edu/utklaw_facpubs/468/ https://ir.law.utk.edu/utklaw_facpubs/468/
mannanj 2mo ago
Maybe the goal isn't really to protect the public's interests, but to protect a privileged class of people.
pstuart 2mo ago
Too many people will see this type of thing and go "I don't smoke weed so this is not a problem for me"
bluegatty 2mo ago
You started out right but this: "This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down." No. The 'domestic violence and prohibited substances' is the part that will ruin lives directly. Domestic violence, bad. The drugs, debatable, but that's a matter of getting 'weed' made legal, not a surveillance issue. It's not 'destroyed lives from crime' - it's the 'destroyed civic fabric from an authoritarian surveillance state' ... that is the problem. It's not the 'incident' that is the problem, because Flock is not helping cops be 'dirty cops' or anything. It's the totality of it - and the pernicious grinding away of common civil liberties. Probably we should not be able to use this 'interstate' unless for 'in pursuit of violent criminals leaving the scene of a violent crime' ... which is so rare that it wouldn't make sense. The only place this should be tolerated is in 'acute areas of high crime, with annual review and judicial warrant' - aka where there is literally that much crime that it's a serious civic concern - and it has to be part of an overall civic plan by the municipality, in conjunction with social services, investment etc - never as a 'lone tool'.
- antonvs 2mo ago
  > It's not the 'incident' that is the problem, because Flock is not helping cops be 'dirty cops' or anything. That's exactly what Flock is doing. It's just the latest variation on "power corrupts".
  - bluegatty 2mo ago
    Then your argument is we should have no police 'because power corrupts' I don't think this is reasonable or principled. The evidence here is that Flock can be used maliciously, I don't think anyone doubts that, the question is it a tool that is inherently bad in it's normal functioning, and I don't think so. Like ... 'pepper spray' can be used maliciously by cops, since it's 'less apparently extreme' they can get away with more shenanigans. But it's not 'inherently' bad tool, and perpetual use won't change policing. If you see a story where cops use pepper spray maliciously, and it harms someone ... that's evidence of an incident, not of a bad tool. The 'evil' of flock is the surveillance state, not in bad apple cops.
euroderf 2mo ago
What you describe could pass for the USSR all over again.
colonelpopcorn 2mo ago
I went on a grand jury in early 2025, and it was eye opening to see that under my state's laws the "smell of weed" is enough to justify a traffic stop and search of a vehicle.
adfginion 2mo ago
[dead]
GuB-42 2mo ago
I am playing devil's advocate here, but mass surveillance can also save you. Let's say your just broke up with your girlfriend, shortly after, her house get burgled and a bunch of jewelry is stolen, including some you gave her when you were together. A surveillance camera catches the burglar, a drug addict with a criminal record, he gets caught, tried and sentenced to 2 years in prison. The kind of case that won't get a news article, you may not even be aware of what happened. Without the surveillance camera, you would be a prime suspect, and even if you don't get convicted in the end, there is a good chance for the police to give you a hard time. Here is the asymmetry, if a surveillance camera prevents a wrongful arrest, no one will notice, because you don't notice things that don't happen. Only wrongful arrests caused by surveillance cameras will be noticed. More surveillance doesn't mean more arrests, trials and convictions. These are limited by the availability of police forces, magistrates and jails respectively. Even with a total surveillance zero privacy dystopia, you can't have more arrests without the means to do so. What will change is on what grounds the arrests are made: video footage, a witness testimony, etc... It doesn't mean I support mass surveillance (I told you I was going to play devil's advocate), but that alone doesn't mean more wrongful arrests as a whole unless something else in the system is promoting wrongful arrests. There are legitimate concerns about Flock that don't involve wrongful arrests, such as misuse of data by operators, like for stalking, data security, which may leak to criminals, and usage for purpose other than law enforcement, like marketing. The fact that it is a private company funded by public money with dubious contracts is another concern.
- pixl97 2mo ago
  Assuming cops actually present the evidence they have and don't hide it from the defense. The police and DA don't care if they put a guilty or not guilty person in jail, the 'tough on crime' faction that tends to get people elected cares about the number of people thrown in jail. The more the better. Throw 10,000 people in jail, you must be a damned good elected official and you get re-elected. >you can't have more arrests without the means to do so. Not exactly sure what you're trying to say... you can always have more arrests. Make more things crime. Pre-crime, thought crime, speech crime. When you run out of physical space you start stacking the prisoners 10 deep. When that runs out of space you start executing them and putting them in ovens.
xnx 2mo ago
> This is the big problem with mass surveillance as a whole. With enough time, they'll find some pretext to bring you in, even if the original crime they want you for is weak. This sounds like a problem with an unaccountable police force. London has had a CCTV system for 60 years.
- Cider9986 2mo ago
  And it's the least free western country.
zombot 2mo ago
> Mass surveillance is a loophole to this contract. More like a hammer to your head.

cucumber3732842 2mo ago

>This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down. Yes. That's exactly the point. Comply with every little thing, no matter how absurd, or else your life will unravel. Look through a historical comment (especially from back when "big data" was the buzzword) thread on any subject where HN is pro regulation and pro government. This is EXACTLY what the useful idiots want. They want some NYC liquor store owner to pay a hundred grand to the state because that one time he visited NH he loaded up his van with tax free henny to sell back home. They want that exurban undeveloped lot owner to lose their house for letting their buddy with a tree service dump there and fill in a few hundred square feet over the course of half a decade. They want some random industrial employer that makes nuts and bolts or something to be fined millions of dollars because their maintenance employees spray painted a piece of equipment in the parking lot without the PPE and pollution compliance measures befitting a commercial paint operation. They want the jackboot on the throat of everyone who steps out of line on any axis that they care about. They see the way the banking industry tries to stay away from weed, porn and guns because the upside isn't worth the risk of being combed over by the enforcers. And instead of seeing it as cautionary, they see it as a model that needs to be scaled down to the small businesses and the lowly individual peasants. Of course they don't lay it out so plainly. They use words like "negative externality" and "antisocial" and "dis-incentivize" to whitewash it but that doesn't change what it is.

cmrdporcupine 2mo ago
All very terrifying but you're building a "Hollow Man" by using an "Appeal to Extremes". Instead of arguing against actual regulatory policy, you are mind-reading malicious intent into hypothetical scenarios (and people) you just invented. Or real examples that you're broadstroking against a "they" which is somehow "HN." I am not sure how you can justify trying to paint so broad a stroke across an entire community, or feel justified in creating a bucket of "useful idiots" into which you just throw whole classes of unnamed people without engaging with any particular argument. I get you're angry, my man, but maybe you should question exactly who it is you're angry with.
- blamecanada69 2mo ago
  We don't need Canadians telling Americans that we're wrong to worry about American police, or that we need to be more specific with our concerns. American police kill over 1,000 civilians and 10,000 dogs per year. They routinely wrongly arrest people, and create life-ruining situations, especially as American workers do not enjoy as much job protection as Canadian workers. I get that you want to be offended by his post, but maybe you should question why exactly you're offended at a post that has, at its heart, a lot of actual reality about life in America.
  - cmrdporcupine 2mo ago
    Because said person is sitting here saying "HN is stupid", it has nothing to do with the police, but the audience he's going after. Read what he wrote and I wrote again. Nobody is excusing American police. I'm griping about his attempts to smear random people on this forum. Nowhere did I tell you you're wrong to worry about American police. FFS, I worry about American police and I don't live there. Hence why I won't even go there.
    - cucumber3732842 2mo ago
      >Because said person is sitting here saying "HN is stupid", it has nothing to do with the police, but the audience he's going after. I said that if you go into policy discussions where HN is pro regulation you can see all sorts of commenters cheering for the pro-jackboot takes and peddlers thereof. It's a subtle distinction between that and "the whole place is stupid" but it's there. > I'm griping about his attempts to smear random people on this forum. Want me to name names? I can go right down the leader board saying who wants jackboot applied and on what policy axis. I don't think that's productive.

bko 2mo ago

Maybe they can start enforcing the law when it comes to blatant offenders that terrorize large cities. Illegal blocking of sidewalk selling fake handbags, selling untaxed marijuana on street corners, violating traffic laws on e-bikes. A lot of wood to chop before they get to my jay walking so I think I’m safe for the time being. But I welcome more enforcement

daun_gee 2mo ago
[dead]
contagiousflow 2mo ago
> terrorize large cities Oh I wonder what kind of terror he's talking about > Illegal blocking of sidewalk selling fake handbags Jesus Christ. If this is what brings you to a surveillance state with open arms maybe you should talk to people outside of your bubble.
- bko 2mo ago
  It doesn't have to be like this. Why do you accept it? Serious question. You don't need a surveillance state. How many indignities do you stomach for what exactly? Some false sense of freedom? Freedom to buy illegal unlicensed untaxed weed? Freedom to get run over by a delivery ebike?
  - natebc 2mo ago
    [dead]
  - Windchaser 2mo ago
    > How many indignities do you stomach for what exactly? People selling handbags neither threatens my dignity nor makes me indignant. When I think of "terrorize", I think of things like.. y'know, people strapped with explosives, blowing up buses full of civilians. Or something like the Rape of Nanking, where Japanese army killed and raped their way across the city. The Japanese terrorized the city, literally instilling a nightmarish-level of fear. I can't place "they're terrorizing me by selling handbags" anywhere in the same universe. If you're genuinely frightened by this, I would like to gently suggest you talk this through with a therapist.

giantg2 2mo ago

"Even if they're wrong, you can't shoot back." Depends on the situation. You'd absolutely be arrested. Get in front of a jury of 12 people and you might have a chance if you have enough evidence for a self-defense claim and the cop acting outside of the law.

saghm 2mo ago
Honestly getting arrested would be lucky. If recent years have shown anything, they don't need to be particularly concerned about removing you from the picture more permanently regardless of the circumstances.
BeefySwain 2mo ago
Good luck living long enough to see a jury
- giantg2 2mo ago
  The choice in this hypothetical scenario is to be killed initially through the unlawful use of force or potentially be killed at some later time before reaching trial.
insanitybit 2mo ago
Only if the jury believes in nullification, which isn't common. The jury is instructed to follow the law. The selection process asks "even if you think they were right, if it's against the law and they were guilty would you issue a guilty verdict?" and people answer "yes" consistently.
- btbuildem 2mo ago
  No one who has answered "no" made it thru the selection process, so there might be some survivor bias at play here.
  - insanitybit 2mo ago
    I'm referring to the first selection process.

segmondy 2mo ago

Someone that is innocent is going to get killed soon because flock flagged them incorrectly. I recall reading the auto journalist that got flagged for a stolen car while test driving a car. We have seen how often pull over/arrests can derail when a stupid cop that is aggressive pulls out their weapon first, fires fast and then investigates last. An innocent person that reacts wrongly is eventually going to make the news. :-(

dgellow 2mo ago
That might already have happened for all we know
ericcholis 2mo ago
https://www.jalopnik.com/2219072/auto-journalist-harassed-by-cops-flock-cameras-working-correctly/ https://www.jalopnik.com/2219072/auto-journalist-harassed-by... Link for the curious
- GoofGarage 2mo ago
  Link straight from the source (the actual journalist) https://www.thedrive.com/news/how-flock-cameras-wrongly-tracked-me-for-days-over-stolen-plates-and-sent-police-after-me https://www.thedrive.com/news/how-flock-cameras-wrongly-trac...
  - downrightmike 2mo ago
    flock's out, glocks out
skeeter2020 2mo ago
Woman with SUV filled with minors pulled out by cops and handcuffed on the ground in Colorado based on flock ID'ing the license plate of stolen... motorcycle with same number (but from a different state). You can't make this shit up. https://www.kxlf.com/news/america-in-crisis/aurora-police-detain-black-family-after-mistaking-their-vehicle-as-stolen https://www.kxlf.com/news/america-in-crisis/aurora-police-de...

bastardoperator 2mo ago

How do the municipalities "own" this data if anyone from any agency outside of a jurisdiction is allowed to access the data?

skeeter2020 2mo ago
worse than that, federal agencies - which can't access it directly - do so via their "law enforcement partners". So now you've got DHS and ICE using it for their own pseudo-law activities.

MengerSponge 2mo ago

Necessary reading: "Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything is a Crime" https://ir.law.utk.edu/utklaw_facpubs/468/ https://ir.law.utk.edu/utklaw_facpubs/468/

mannanj 2mo ago

Maybe the goal isn't really to protect the public's interests, but to protect a privileged class of people.

pstuart 2mo ago

Too many people will see this type of thing and go "I don't smoke weed so this is not a problem for me"

bluegatty 2mo ago

You started out right but this: "This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down." No. The 'domestic violence and prohibited substances' is the part that will ruin lives directly. Domestic violence, bad. The drugs, debatable, but that's a matter of getting 'weed' made legal, not a surveillance issue. It's not 'destroyed lives from crime' - it's the 'destroyed civic fabric from an authoritarian surveillance state' ... that is the problem. It's not the 'incident' that is the problem, because Flock is not helping cops be 'dirty cops' or anything. It's the totality of it - and the pernicious grinding away of common civil liberties. Probably we should not be able to use this 'interstate' unless for 'in pursuit of violent criminals leaving the scene of a violent crime' ... which is so rare that it wouldn't make sense. The only place this should be tolerated is in 'acute areas of high crime, with annual review and judicial warrant' - aka where there is literally that much crime that it's a serious civic concern - and it has to be part of an overall civic plan by the municipality, in conjunction with social services, investment etc - never as a 'lone tool'.

antonvs 2mo ago
> It's not the 'incident' that is the problem, because Flock is not helping cops be 'dirty cops' or anything. That's exactly what Flock is doing. It's just the latest variation on "power corrupts".
- bluegatty 2mo ago
  Then your argument is we should have no police 'because power corrupts' I don't think this is reasonable or principled. The evidence here is that Flock can be used maliciously, I don't think anyone doubts that, the question is it a tool that is inherently bad in it's normal functioning, and I don't think so. Like ... 'pepper spray' can be used maliciously by cops, since it's 'less apparently extreme' they can get away with more shenanigans. But it's not 'inherently' bad tool, and perpetual use won't change policing. If you see a story where cops use pepper spray maliciously, and it harms someone ... that's evidence of an incident, not of a bad tool. The 'evil' of flock is the surveillance state, not in bad apple cops.

euroderf 2mo ago

What you describe could pass for the USSR all over again.

colonelpopcorn 2mo ago

I went on a grand jury in early 2025, and it was eye opening to see that under my state's laws the "smell of weed" is enough to justify a traffic stop and search of a vehicle.

adfginion 2mo ago

[dead]

GuB-42 2mo ago

I am playing devil's advocate here, but mass surveillance can also save you. Let's say your just broke up with your girlfriend, shortly after, her house get burgled and a bunch of jewelry is stolen, including some you gave her when you were together. A surveillance camera catches the burglar, a drug addict with a criminal record, he gets caught, tried and sentenced to 2 years in prison. The kind of case that won't get a news article, you may not even be aware of what happened. Without the surveillance camera, you would be a prime suspect, and even if you don't get convicted in the end, there is a good chance for the police to give you a hard time. Here is the asymmetry, if a surveillance camera prevents a wrongful arrest, no one will notice, because you don't notice things that don't happen. Only wrongful arrests caused by surveillance cameras will be noticed. More surveillance doesn't mean more arrests, trials and convictions. These are limited by the availability of police forces, magistrates and jails respectively. Even with a total surveillance zero privacy dystopia, you can't have more arrests without the means to do so. What will change is on what grounds the arrests are made: video footage, a witness testimony, etc... It doesn't mean I support mass surveillance (I told you I was going to play devil's advocate), but that alone doesn't mean more wrongful arrests as a whole unless something else in the system is promoting wrongful arrests. There are legitimate concerns about Flock that don't involve wrongful arrests, such as misuse of data by operators, like for stalking, data security, which may leak to criminals, and usage for purpose other than law enforcement, like marketing. The fact that it is a private company funded by public money with dubious contracts is another concern.

pixl97 2mo ago
Assuming cops actually present the evidence they have and don't hide it from the defense. The police and DA don't care if they put a guilty or not guilty person in jail, the 'tough on crime' faction that tends to get people elected cares about the number of people thrown in jail. The more the better. Throw 10,000 people in jail, you must be a damned good elected official and you get re-elected. >you can't have more arrests without the means to do so. Not exactly sure what you're trying to say... you can always have more arrests. Make more things crime. Pre-crime, thought crime, speech crime. When you run out of physical space you start stacking the prisoners 10 deep. When that runs out of space you start executing them and putting them in ovens.

xnx 2mo ago

> This is the big problem with mass surveillance as a whole. With enough time, they'll find some pretext to bring you in, even if the original crime they want you for is weak. This sounds like a problem with an unaccountable police force. London has had a CCTV system for 60 years.

Cider9986 2mo ago
And it's the least free western country.

zombot 2mo ago

> Mass surveillance is a loophole to this contract. More like a hammer to your head.