I think the ACLU has a great set of examples: https://www.aclu.org/other/whats-wrong-public-video-surveill...

Police databases have been routinely abused so I don't see how the watchers can be trusted with more information when they have zero oversight and ability to manage what they already have :/

If we go to the level of one time a cop did a bad thing with this tool then yeah everything will be abused. I'm more interested in cases where the police as a organization abused CCTV.

You asked for an example, and they provided it. Then you moved the goal post

Because the first goal post was meaningless. If that's the level we're looking at then we can't even give cops sticks because at least one of them is going to beat an innocent person with it.

> Because the first goal post was meaningless.

I think that's debatable. If an individual can abuse the system in a way that undermines the intent of the system, we need to think carefully about what it is that we're actually building.

> we can't even give cops sticks because at least one of them is going to beat an innocent person with it.

Considering the debate around police violence in America right now, I think it's amusing that we're using this as an example of a ridiculous proposition. Maybe not sticks, no, but the level to which our police are armed is definitely under scrutiny.

>Because the first goal post was meaningless.

You're the one that placed it there.

Not really. They said abuse. I took that to mean abuse by the police as a group. Not abuse by any individual cop.

I think the ACLU has a great set of examples: https://www.aclu.org/other/whats-wrong-public-video-surveill...

That's a red herring. However if you must engage the literal nature of the phrasing which captures the wisdom from experience...what are your thoughts on PRISM?