RE: Mass Camera Surveillance Can Take Down Statism - NUTS! CRAZY! Or is it?

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Mass Camera Surveillance Can Take Down Statism - NUTS! CRAZY! Or is it?

in politics •  7 years ago 

So the problem with mass surveillance is the fact that only some people (authority) have access to the surveillance footage; the solution to that problem involves (a) full video coverage of all public spaces, and (b) making the surveillance footage accessible to everyone, rather than just authority/state.

Some people would be okay with the idea of being recorded anytime they go in public... the author of this article, several of the commenters for example. They see the trade-off being acceptable. However, there are those of us who don't see it as an acceptable trade-off, and do not wish to be recorded everywhere they go. Your arguments aren't good enough to convince us.

Now, here's the question: in order to implement this, you're going to have to force it upon those of us who object. But I thought this was a solution to statist tyranny. Wouldn't you say being forced into going along with something like this is a form of statist tyranny?

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Your arguments aren't good enough to convince us.

OK. Those of us who do want to set up cameras in private places for security, as we are, can continue to do so, and network with each other to provide access when crimes are created, allowing access to the areas cameras whent hey agree to join that network. No access is open for view without a crime existing in the area. That would be a restricted way of doing it that would still allow everyone to verify criminal reports.

Now, here's the question: in order to implement this, you're going to have to force it upon those of us who object.

That was your assumption. You think I'm a statist :P You made your own straw man and confused yourself. Peace.

Dude, it's not about calling you a statist or any stupid label. Its about a contradiction in what you were advocating for, vs. what the stated goals are. I read that you advocated for total public surveillance, and that total surveillance is OK so long as everyone has open access to the footage. However, my gripe is that if not everyone wants total public surveillance, then you have to force it upon those who don't in order to achieve what you're advocating for. And now you're "moving the goalpost", suddenly advocating for a private-only system, with restricted access, and then accusing me of building a straw man!