If you assume the other way, pervasive surveillance makes a frame-up easier.
And your rejoinder doesn't make sense. If you were being railroaded for a crime video showing that you didn't do it cant hurt you.
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/11/18/body-camera-aurora-pol...
> Police Chief Nick Metz said he wants to release body camera footage from the August death of Elijah McClain to lend more transparency to the investigation. But three months later, police still have it — advised by the district attorney’s office to keep it in house.
In the UK as well, there have been several cases where the police have chosen only to disclose “relevant” evidence, when the existence of additional evidence becomes known the case collapses.
Really? Where? Because in most countries with laws requiring that, police and prosecutors regularly ignore said laws with impunity.
I wonder how the arguments against surveillance capitalism poll across targeted minorities vs. the general population. I speculate that sentiments diverge in the same direction as sentiments towards the police.
But I agree with your sentiment otherwise.
To be clear, I don't agree with that, or any of the 5 points I put above. But I still think it's important to emphasize that 90+ percent of people will look at that and similar cases and think "that situation doesn't apply to me."
That only applies to genetic data. There are several ways for your insurer to find out everything wrong with you, especially when many medical practices sell your data. It does not cover any other type of insurance, other than health insurance. Genetic information can be used to discriminate in disability insurance, long-term care insurance, life insurance etc.
I think you highlighted a bigger core issue: people think that the past was somehow better and what they're seeing in their time is unique. The justice system isn't changing, it's been like this for at least a century, probably longer. America hasn't just elected its first rabble rousing demagogue for a president and now the country is going to shit, this has happened before. Multiple times.
This is worrisome to me because it causes emotional overreactions to situations that aren't really that unprecedented. We elected Donald Trump, and obviously we are special so we have to make sure this doesn't happen again. The punchline is that we are ignorant of the past and are unaware that the republic has carried on just fine after previously awful presidents, and without that knowledge, we may make a number of bad decisions that negatively affect the future of this country.
1. In the US, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act already prohibits this. For other things, like "are you a skydiver", the insurance company already has the right to ask you that.
2. I mean, sure, I'm sure I've broken some laws, but I can't think of any examples of overly agressive prosecutions for people who weren't already guilty of bad shit.
3. I mean, people are already used to creepy hypertargeted Facebook ads, most of them have don't really care anymore.
4. I mean sure, but how does this affect me?
5. This just sounds like a hand-wavy slippery slope argument.
I think the issue for most people in the US is that they still fundamentally believe that the justice system is generally "just", at least with respect to themselves, though that is obviously changing. Contrast that with Germany, where people are vividly aware of what happens when the government uses personal data nefariously.