4 ms·

I'm saying more surveillance == worse. And I'm saying that it would not necessarily resolve his specific problem. It would resolve the problem of whoever contro

I'm saying more surveillance == worse. And I'm saying that it would not necessarily resolve his specific problem. It would resolve the problem of whoever controls the footage.

chrischen 13y ago
Why wouldn't more surveillance have solved his specific problem? His specific problem arose because nobody knew the truth about where he was or what he was doing. Imperfect information caused him to be falsely accused. Here's a though experience. If you believed in an all-knowing God, do you think He would know that the OP was innocent? If yes, then that's because the God knows and sees everything right? Again, I'm not saying more surveillance is good in any way. One of the problems is that it's a lot of concentrated power and whoever gets a hold of it could abuse it. However, one way to ameliorate this would be to implement lots of surveillance, and make it all public data. A more open society would probably be a good thing though.
- eliasmacpherson 13y ago
  Because unless I am mistaken, you had not mentioned it being public data. Private surveillance is not really much use to him. I've worked in places where the surveillance tapes were wiped or mislaid when it wasn't in the interest of the footage owner to have its existence known. Making it all public data would be totally different. That opens another can of worms: Would it then be a crime to delete the data if you were the owner of the footage?
  - chrischen 13y ago
    Regardless of it being public or not, fundamentally it still stands that more surveillance means the OP would have been vindicated. If you want to talk about abuse of the data, that's a whole other issue. The question is, if surveillance is benevolent, would it have helped the OP? Yes. It would have.
    - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
      That's a big if. The owner of the footage can be ambivalent, malevolent or benevolent. If I was ambivalent over an incident, I wouldn't be motivated to get involved and hand over my footage.

I'm saying more surveillance == worse. And I'm saying that it would not necessarily resolve his specific problem. It would resolve the problem of whoever controls the footage.

chrischen 13y ago

Why wouldn't more surveillance have solved his specific problem? His specific problem arose because nobody knew the truth about where he was or what he was doing. Imperfect information caused him to be falsely accused. Here's a though experience. If you believed in an all-knowing God, do you think He would know that the OP was innocent? If yes, then that's because the God knows and sees everything right? Again, I'm not saying more surveillance is good in any way. One of the problems is that it's a lot of concentrated power and whoever gets a hold of it could abuse it. However, one way to ameliorate this would be to implement lots of surveillance, and make it all public data. A more open society would probably be a good thing though.

eliasmacpherson 13y ago
Because unless I am mistaken, you had not mentioned it being public data. Private surveillance is not really much use to him. I've worked in places where the surveillance tapes were wiped or mislaid when it wasn't in the interest of the footage owner to have its existence known. Making it all public data would be totally different. That opens another can of worms: Would it then be a crime to delete the data if you were the owner of the footage?
- chrischen 13y ago
  Regardless of it being public or not, fundamentally it still stands that more surveillance means the OP would have been vindicated. If you want to talk about abuse of the data, that's a whole other issue. The question is, if surveillance is benevolent, would it have helped the OP? Yes. It would have.
  - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
    That's a big if. The owner of the footage can be ambivalent, malevolent or benevolent. If I was ambivalent over an incident, I wouldn't be motivated to get involved and hand over my footage.