> Crucially the end user should then be ASKED which to enable
except, on the other side of the "strange fellows" are people who rose to executive authority by ruthless focus on control of every aspect of their business, and profit including excluding others who did actual work. There is zero point zero chance of any argument that relies on "should" to work IMHO
this is a political situation by definition -- vastly different yet connected members of society and economics, seeking the rule of law to enable stable markets. hint- some of the same decision makers are the ones that pay to put spy code in your large new TV or appliances.
yeah - under certain "the winners write the history" framework, I believe that scribes did not add spaces between "words".. However, the world is a big place; history is long.
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.
> 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.
I am! If the rest of your post is predicated on an unsupported point, it means it's unsupported, by definition. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence[1].
I agree that the hypothetical "chilling effect", as presented, is plausible and reasonable, but it lacks evidence. As such, I saved myself the effort of reading what might be a plausible argument until such time as it becomes supported by evidence.
I went back and read it, and you supported it with more hypotheticals, not evidence. So congratulations, you made me waste a couple minutes of my life! But this just tells me I once again made the right judgement call in not reading it the first time, and doesn't really help further your cause, or convince me I'm mistaken in this regard.
this exchange -- obvious critical / perhaps insurrection speech versus a stable voice of business economics -- should be within the purview of an orderly and predictable legal environment. BUT things moved quickly in the phone battles. Some people say that the legal system has never caught up to the data brokering, and in fact the surveillance state grew by leaps and bounds.
So, reasonable people may disagree. This is a fine place to mention it .. what if individual profiles built at LinkedIn are being combined with illegitimate and even directly illegal surveillance data and sold daily? Everyone stand up and salute when LinkedIn walks in the room? there has to be legal and direct ways to deal with change, and enforcement to complete an orderly and predictable economic marketplace.
>BUT things moved quickly in the phone battles. Some people say that the legal system has never caught up to the data brokering, and in fact the surveillance state grew by leaps and bounds.
Partially by discrepancy in how responsive you can be or comprehensive you must be to win the next round of cat-and-mouse, and partially because a private/corporate surveillance apparatus is useful to a government that might otherwise be hampered by constitutional bounds.
no one has mentioned "The Secret History of Lead" published by The Nation in March 2000. The long and detailed article exposed the deliberate and long-standing cover-up of leaded gasoline's dangers by major corporations. Villians include General Motors, Du Pont, and Standard Oil of New Jersey (now Exxon).
social Darwinists are rejoicing daily.. they don't tend to comment in the open. Several distant relatives here in the USA fly private planes while this board is active.. I guess that they spend zero time talking about the needs of others or "fairness" issues..
It’s universal too; I know a lot of women, queers, POC, who don’t give one second of reflection to the reality 12-13 year old kids are sewing all the crap fashion they buy off Temu, or off the shelf at local shops who just import cheap crap to cash in on “buy local” memes.
They call it freedom and self determination. I call it co-dependency and learned helplessness. Labor exploitation.
Low skilled in their own right; they have no idea where to start solving their needs so never engage the motor agency.
Learned helplessness so a minority of humanity; first world affluents; out to avoid being responsible for themselves while they scold everyone else via TikTok.
Yes the politicians are awful for their own reasons but so many merely express concerns while carrying on without putting any real effort into solving their exploitative waves. Empty virtue signaling.
reply