I would love a national ID that I could use everywhere. Again ripe for abuse but I can see the benefits outweighing the negatives.
I myself will stay far away from any Leopards Eating People's Faces Party areas and their "stable society."
>I myself will stay far away from any Leopards Eating People's Faces Party areas and their "stable society."
And here is a prime example of why discourse is so hard in the modern era. Please don't create outrage where none exists. Please don't bring politics into something that is not political.
As society progresses its harder to just go with the flow and not have different types of regulation. You would expect everyone to be a rational actor, but they are not. There is a minimum level of conformity required for most functioning societies.
Happy that people disagree with my take on public surveillance but disappointed with your sense of false outrage and brashness. It so sad this is what pollutes so much of our information and discourse.
Nobody is "creating outrage where none exists" nor are they bringing "politics into something that is not political."
We're discussing public policy around surveillance and many of us disagree with your position.
BTW, the term "Leopards Eating People's Faces Party" refers to a lot more than just Republicans - it was commonly used against Brexit supporters, as one example: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/leopards-eating-peoples-faces...
I stopped watching politics about 5 years ago and I constantly have to fight my YouTube feed to keep it out. I've never heard that term and I'm glad I don't know what it means. It shows the political deprogramming is finally happening.
Why does a position need to be political? Of course in modern US politics, party lines are stronger than ever and by identifying strongly with a party you generally identify with certain positions. But I don't believe its true that to have a position or view of the world means you have a political position. Being political, and outraged for that matter, happens when you tell someone to go somewhere else to live or explicitly bring (by naming) politics into a discussion.
I like the idea of having cameras everywhere, along with the idea that I like all police to wear cameras to hold everyone in the interaction accountable.
Mass surveillance involves giving the government, an inherently political entity, and its partners in the private sector increased power over public life. It's hard to get a more political issue than that.
Has nothing to do with Republicans. I have a problem with most power at a fundamental level. I largely side with the animals who I think should be armed to bring balance back to the world.
Might want to slow your dismissal of who exactly disagrees with you.
Instead of argue with you, because I do really think that's a hard and in depth argument, I'm telling you about those like me who don't believe control is necessary for society. So much so that I think you should be able to disagree with me, and the only limiting factor here is land/area/which society.
I predict that you will fall victim to the control you want to protect you, and can think of no better way to prove my argument than have you live it.
You don't get to trample all over civil rights and then accuse the other side of "making it political".
So by supporting the idea of both cameras recording in public spaces and the ability to collect data off those cameras, you’re trampling all over civil rights?
Whether the trampling is done by the one wearing the boot, the one cheering it on, or some combination of both is only of academic interest. The anti-due-process attitude is contrary to some of the most fundamental tenets of our legal system.
Q: If it weren't ethically dubious and of questionable constitutionality, why not just put cameras in the intersections themselves (which The Government certainly controls), rather than leasing spots on private lots adjacent to them? Why not extract this data from extant highway cameras (which The Government can surely access for free)?
A: Because, like a masked cartoon burglar hiding in the bushes, they don't want the public to know what they're doing, because they know what they're doing is Bad.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/politics/dia-surveillance-data.htmlNah, lets give it to a company to make it easier to punish people.
In fact, despite massive increases to surveillance tech, including cops having the location of anyone's cell phone whenever they want it thanks to private companies that are allowed to sell such data to cops with pretty much no limits, even though the cops themselves are not supposed to have such data, the clearance rate for violent crime is abysmal, 30ish percent.
Meanwhile property crime clearance rates are EVEN LOWER, at about 12%.
We don't even keep good stats about white collar crime meanwhile...
Before we give the cops more toys to harass us with, can we at least make them demonstrate they actually use the tools they have? Right now cops demonstrably do not do their jobs.
A. Actions that are considered crimes do not change over time.
B. Incentives to catch and prosecute crimes are not KPIed based on incarceration rates.