> but the idea of an insurance company deputizing millions of cameras to perform mass surveillance to make a buck is suddenly okay because drivers that make us angry on the road get hurt by it.

I'd word it more like drivers who put me and others around me in danger should be punished for driving recklessly.

Fair enough. After all, as we all know, the only reason to object to massive surveillance nets is if you're a criminal who has something to hide. Since I keep the law all that tracking and monitoring won't affect me.

I mean, you do have to admit that by objecting to "massive surveillance nets", you're actively helping criminals who have things to hide, even if you don't.

If you think that's worth it, that's up to you, but you do have to admit that your position helps those with antisocial goals. You'll probably argue that "massive surveillance nets are inherently antisocial", but we both know that's not any more true than saying that "absolute freedom of speech is inherently antisocial". Arguably true, but wholly subjective.

It's just an observation: this proposal aimed at penalizing bad drivers gets upvoted and generally supported, but proposals aimed at hunting down child pornographers get attacked as dangerous overreach. "I have nothing to hide" is an invalid argument for E2E encryption backdoors, but it's the correct way to think about a dashcam botnet.

It's just an interesting insight into the collective tech consciousness.

>you do have to admit that by objecting to "massive surveillance nets", you're actively helping criminals who have things to hide

This is such a disengenious gaslighting way of framing critic it would make politicians blush. I hope none of your "positions" could ever be used for anything bad ever or its your fault wether you want or not

Sorry about this, but a law was just passed making posting anything to a public-facing web site without prior government authorization a serious crime with a five-year forced-labor-camp sentence.

> Fair enough. After all, as we all know, the only reason to object to massive surveillance nets is if you're a criminal who has something to hide

Yea, that's the case when i'm submitting a video of a crime being committed. I also submitted video of crimes in my neighborhood being committed (home security cams), is that also an invasion of the criminals privacy?

The difference is it's in public. Google et al wants to get into your private life. Nobody is talking about watching you race cars on a private track.

So you're okay with police having access to facial recognition cameras on every public street in order to better track down violent criminals?

> to make a buck

And to make roads safer.

So it's also okay for police to deploy large-scale facial recognition systems to help enforce the law and catch violent criminals, right? Or is there something special about cars or about insurance companies that makes them the exception?

You are not a car

One of the first things you learn when you get your drivers license is that you don't have the same rights on public roads as you do off the roads, or in private (such as requirements for carrying up-to-date license, breathalyzers, etc).