Doesn't every army conduct "mass surveillance"? What do you think all those satellites with cameras are doing orbiting the planet?

Wouldn't the opposite be incredibly immoral? Attacking/bombing/etc without large scale surveillance would largely mean increased collateral damage.

▲

lordofgibbons 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Are you seriously equating observing an area using satellites with indiscriminately monitoring everyone's calls, messages, and possibly hacking their devices?

▲

pcthrowaway 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Additionally, there is observation AI face tracking of all movements of Palestinians in the West Bank, who live under occupation. While other governments may also conduct monitoring of their citizens to varying degrees, the distinction is that they are monitoring citizens, not using monitoring to enforce military apartheid.

▲

3form 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Given lackluster response to the recent attempts of the "democratic" governments to do very much the same to their own citizens, I daresay not many are particularly impressed.

▲

holmesworcester 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And not in a war zone, even. (West Bank is governed by Israel.)

▲

dragonwriter 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The West Bank is occupied by Israel and Israel has overall control, but it is broken up into a whole bunch of tiny administrative regions, some of which are administered by the PA and some of which are administered directly by Israel.

▲

babu657 an hour ago | parent [-]

Gee i wonder what happens if Israel just let the west bank be. Wait…i know what will happen

	▲	tguvot 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Rocket factories, like the one that was discovered week ago https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bjbqu9qolx

▲

kennywinker 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Perhaps the actual moral choice isn’t attacking blindly or mass surveillance of an occupied nation - it’s peace?

Regardless, the death toll in gaza (somewhere between 45,000 and 600,000) suggests that this mass surveillance isn’t being used effectively to reduce the death toll. It also doesn’t take mass surveillance to know that bombing hospitals and schools is going to kill innocent people.

▲

dark_mode 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Wouldn't the opposite be incredibly immoral? Attacking/bombing/etc without large scale surveillance would largely mean increased collateral damage.

The concern is who gets to decide what is or isn't a legitimate target? Today's heroes might be tomorrow's victims. I'd rather no one have that much power over others.

	▲	3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

ycombigators 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It would be pretty difficult for the IDF to increase their level of collateral damage.

▲

Sporktacular an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Arguing that mass surveillance is not unethical but actually a way to save lives is pretty disingenuous, absurdly so considering how little the country wielding it cares about collateral damage.

▲

samirillian an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Holy crap you’re totally right