The first is the person who has no concern for surveillance. He believes that if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. You see more of these people in older generations, when institutional trust was irrationally high.
The second is the person who responds rabidly to any form or application of surveillance. This is the sort of person who believes that all surveillance is abused, public or private, and if it isn't, that it inevitably will be. Slippery slope fallacy is his motto.
A reasonable range of opinion can exist on the subject between those two extremes.
Personally, I have no problem with traffic cameras per se. First, we are in a public space where recordings are generally permitted. Second, no one is being stalked or harassed by a fixed camera. Third, there are problems that only surveillance can reasonably solve (loud cars, dangerous speeding).
My concerns would have to do with the following.
1) Unauthorized access to accumulated data. You should have to have some kind of legal permission to access the data and to do so in very specific ways. For example, if you neighborhood is being disrupted by loud cars, you can use complaints to get permission to query for footage and license plates of cars identified as loud. Each access is logged for audit purposes.
2) Data fusion. You should not be able to combine datasets without permission either. And when such combination occurs, it should also be scoped appropriately. Queries should then be subject to (1).
3) Indefinite hold. Data should have an expiration date. That is, we should not be able to sequester and store data for indefinite periods of time.
4) Private ownership. The collection of certain kinds of surveillance data should belong only to the public and fall under the strict controls above.
The non-specific and general fear of abuse is not a good counterargument.
Not the camera, no, just the eyes behind it -- namely police officers who have been caught stalking exes via Flock.
> Third, there are problems that only surveillance can reasonably solve (loud cars, dangerous speeding).
In many jurisdictions in the US, police must personally witness the events to intervene. /Traffic/ cameras are one thing -- they only record those who violate the laws (red light, speeding). But continual monitoring of all persons passing falls into another bucket, like a Stringray device would.
> The non-specific and general fear of abuse is not a good counterargument.
The abuse of this data is already happening. It's not a hypothetical.
(This is a hypothetical because obviously in reality there's no easy philosophical through line from ideas to policy.)
We don't! I mean, the police don't do so today. No tabs? OK! Expired tabs? OK, too! No license plates? Who gives a shit? Not the police.
And that dives into more impactful crimes such as property theft which when reported to police nothing comes from it.
Hell, I have dashcam of a cop going home roughly at 11 pm going 80+ on a 60mph highway in his cop Ford SUV. But everyone routinely speeds, 7+ over post-COVID. The legislature is trying to do something about it, but no one really cares.
State Patrol is likely the only ones performing any real traffic enforcement anymore.
If your solution is to continuously neuter the police because you perceive them to be ineffective then I'd challenge you to think of the endgame of that logic. If you think it can't get worse than it is now, well, we politically disagree.
Police aren't ineffective, hell they kill unarmed individuals on a regular basis. That's damn effective to ending any form of future crime!