3 ms·
It's not about many people vs. few people. It's about a single person doing little with a lot of effort vs. a single person doing an enormous amount with minima
by Xirdus 2mo ago
It's not about many people vs. few people. It's about a single person doing little with a lot of effort vs. a single person doing an enormous amount with minimal effort.
- eatsyourtacos 2mo agoWhy didn't you have a problem with a single person doing little with a lot of effort? All I'm saying is it should have been a problem at that point.. not just because it's easy now to do it at a high scale.
- nkrisc 2mo agoBecause the outcome is meaningfully different when every citizen can be passively tracked at all times versus a few cops sitting around writing down license plates. The former is massively damaging to our rights, the latter is almost useless and thus barely a problem worth talking about. The difference in scale matters.
- Xirdus 2mo agoI didn't have a problem because the damage that can be caused by doing a little is very limited, and if someone puts too much effort it becomes very visible and they're put under extra scrutiny, preventing them from doing more harm. Also because outlawing standing on a street and taking notes is a very slippery slope.
- dnautics 2mo agothat is not the case. It is not about effort: The court has ruled that single point of time monitoring is fine, but continuous monitoring (a covertly placed gps tracker, e.g.) is a violation of privacy.
- estearum 2mo agoNeither of you are correct. It's about how costly (in time, energy, money) is it to build how complete of a picture based on what level of prior suspicion?
- Xirdus 2mo agoNeeding more people directly translates to needing more energy and money and to having less complete picture. So reducing it to the simple "how much a single person can do" is very useful I'd say.