That has always been the question. Are you willing to be constantly surveilled for marginally more security?

thewebguyd 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Me, absolutely not. Unfortunately, my opinion seems to be increasingly in the minority and more and more people will happily be surveilled for even just an illusory promise of safety.

The harsh truth is that safety/security can never be guaranteed. No amount of surveillance will 100% prevent any individual from being a victim of a crime. Surveillance might help catching the criminal to face justice afterwards, but it will never 100% prevent.

Because of that, and because of the potential for abuse, it is better to not be under constant surveillance than it is to give up your rights and privacy for no guarantees.

▲

toephu2 2 hours ago | parent [-]

There is no expectation of privacy in the public setting though. Anyone can record you in public without your permission.

> No amount of surveillance will 100% prevent any individual from being a victim of a crime.

No, but if it reduces crime by 99% would you be in favor of it? (See South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore.. examples of democratic countries with CCTVs all over the public space.. and before you say well those are racially homogenous countries.. I say look at Singapore. Singapore is very diverse racially, and yet they have very low rates of crime. This is because they have strict laws against crime and these laws are actually enforced)

	▲	yibg 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore all had significantly lower crime rates before CCTVs were all over the public space. EDIT: also, most crime happens at home, so if you really want a large reduction put cameras in everyone's home too.
	▲	dyauspitr an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Singapore is very diverse racially… with groups that aren’t generally known to be very criminal. It’s mostly a mix of Chinese, Malays and Indians. I doubt the CCTVs have much to do with it.

▲

toephu2 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If it leads to a high-trust society, yes. (e.g., see Singapore)

	▲	zanecodes an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I'm pretty sure that if you need ubiquitous surveillance to ensure that your citizens don't commit crimes, you don't have a high-trust society, by definition.
	▲	dyauspitr an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Surveillance and a high trust society are diametrically opposed concepts. You don’t need a high trust society if you have total surveillance and vice versa.