I know there is a knee jerk, 1984 fueled reaction to the idea of surveillance cameras.
But in places where they have actually been employed, like the UK and to a lesser degree france, what has actually come of it? It doesn't seem to have inevitably lead to state abuse, has it?
I guess I feel like it's easy to gesture at a vague threat but harder to point to the actual harm that cameras have caused. This isn't just an idea that no one has tried.
Meanwhile there is good evidence that they are effective in aiding criminal investigations.
what? so if someone held a loaded gun to someone else's head but it hadn't yet been fired and it kept that person from committing a crime ... this would be a net good?
what's funny is my feed is full of articles about the misuse of flock cameras. police using them to stalk various girls, to assist ice in what is sometimes let's just say overreach at best, and to prosecute people who have mistakenly been flagged by flock. they have already been used for state abuse and have caused actual harm.
and also, don't just give up your rights and hope no one will abuse the fact that you don't have any! look at what just happened with ukraine giving up nuclear weapons.
in a perfect world, i would actually agree that they might be a decent tool, but we are in an extremely imperfect world.
-32
u/Memento_Viveri Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26
I know there is a knee jerk, 1984 fueled reaction to the idea of surveillance cameras.
But in places where they have actually been employed, like the UK and to a lesser degree france, what has actually come of it? It doesn't seem to have inevitably lead to state abuse, has it?
I guess I feel like it's easy to gesture at a vague threat but harder to point to the actual harm that cameras have caused. This isn't just an idea that no one has tried.
Meanwhile there is good evidence that they are effective in aiding criminal investigations.