zlacker

>>theamk+(OP)
I'm all for stationary government surveillance EVERYWHERE (in the public), just no surveillance ANYWHERE on individual persons. I think what people do in public should be heavily witnessed and recorded.

>>almost+G31
That sets the stage for overreach. If the data is public, and you are getting stalked, there is nowhere to hide. If corporations/organizations/agencies want to exploit your emotions for ads at any given moment of the day because they can see you and almost everything that happens to you, they can. If a lunatic leader gets elected who wants to kill off a specific group of people (nothing lasts forever, including political stability), its now much easier. With all that in mind, can I ask why?

>>pickle+JH1
Everyone seems to suggest the above narratives, but in truth this is just not the case. Maybe for 0.0000001% of the time it is the narratives above. But the truth is, if Putin or Jay Jones wants someone dead he will get the right spy and do it without a massive surveillance net.

No, the vast majority of the use case is stopping crime that today we can't stop. I want the crime to stop.

>>almost+BZ1
I was thinking more along the lines of cultural/opinion suppression or genocide. This is a very similar type of infrastructure.

https://apnews.com/article/chinese-surveillance-silicon-vall...

The way I see it, there are bad people everywhere (even in the government).

https://local12.com/news/nation-world/police-chief-gets-caug...

And, in a safe country like this one (I am in the United States but most developed countries are pretty safe), if a little petty crime is so scary to them that they need a mass surveillance network to sleep at night... I don't see any reason why the public should have to sacrifice potential freedoms for that weakness.