The thing is I think if you give people the choice between a 0.001% chance of getting murdered on the street or a 100% chance of being surveilled 24/7 you will find that people will take their chances with the murderers

▲ pibaker 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

0.001% chance of being murdered is 1 in 100000 which is about the murder rate of the UK. That does not seem to stop the UK from wanting more surveillance.

The problem with murder rate is it doesn't matter what the actual numbers are. Just bombard people with bad news 24/7 and they will believe the sky is falling and murderous mobs are roaming the streets.

▲ fodkodrasz 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Reality shows otherwise. Take a look at Google and free-for-ads-and-surveillance everything. People are willing to make compromises on privacy for less important things than the change of them or their loved ones getting murdered, as mentioned as an example.

But back to Flock: public cameras are not 24/7 surveillance, as those don't surveil people at home.

ps: I'm not for a panopticon, enforcement needs to come with surveillance also, otherwise it will just be an anarcho-tyranny. So common in the developed world. And enforcement of law must also apply to companies, even (and especially) to vendors of the law-enforcement.

▲ Gud 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People aren’t “making compromises” they are totally oblivious to the evil shit Google, Meta, etc is doing.

	▲	red-iron-pine 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		aye, the average joe has no idea wtf data mining is, or how its risky for them my educated, medical professional in-laws have some vague idea about it but love their instagram and lose chasing the related trends. they have no real, direct understanding as to how this could impact their privacy, or how marketing works, or how propaganda is similar to marketing, etc.

▲ SXX 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

  > But back to Flock: public cameras are not 24/7 surveillance, as those don't surveil people at home.

Fortunatelly for that they can have Amazon partnership. It only got backlash because they been stupid enough to advertise it as superbowl ad.

And backlash its got is the real proof that people not protest against it only because they are not really aware of how bad it is.

▲ SOLAR_FIELDS 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So the argument here is that people are too stupid to realize that they are being manipulated into being controlled, therefore it’s ok?

Sit someone down, a normal average person, and explain to them the actual implications and then do you think they will agree? Reality shows that when people actually understand what surveillance means they reject it wholeheartedly

▲

fodkodrasz an hour ago | parent | next [-]

No, they don't reject it. The realize they hate it, but make a compromise.. and use the free gmail, the ad ridden internet, etc., because they have no real alternatives. Rejecting surveillance capitalism is only realistic for the poorest and the richest. The average people must accept it.

▲

lostlogin 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Reality shows that when people actually understand what surveillance means they reject it wholeheartedly

They certainly say they do. Then back they go to Amazon, Facebook, Instagram et al.

	▲	tancop 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲ kdheiwns 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think people are for surveillance under the presumption of it catching major criminals. But once it's introduced, they realize its main purpose isn't to nab murderers, but to punish them (the people who voted for it).

Surveillance everywhere means you can't park in a no parking zone for 3 minutes just to drop something off real quick. You'll get a ticket mailed to your door. You can't go 5 mph over the limit when nobody is around. You can't slow down at a stop sign without stopping for a full 10 seconds without risking being busted. You can't sneakily sample a grape before deciding whether they taste good enough to buy. You can't not tip a bad restaurant without them plastering your picture on the walls to embarrass you. You can't say a mean thing to an annoying person online in the heat of the moment. Half the people on earth cheat on their spouses while pretending they never would and anyone who does should be imprisoned, and soon they'll have their secret revealed and regret their words. You can't trip and fall in a goofy way without your video being a global meme for a whole month.

All these pop into people's heads and make them think "screw that" after at first thinking it's great.

▲ pjc50 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Unfortunately evidence suggests that people want the opposite, or at least surveillance for everyone else. And not just over murder, over petty crime. Nextdoor is full of people who want to be a surveillance network of humans.

▲ BiteCode_dev 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You may do. And I may do.

But most people won't.

See how they react to terrorism, despite the fact they amount to almost nothing compared to any other cause of death.

People are NOT rational.

	▲	jemmyw 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not sure we know what people want though. After terrorist attacks politicians seem to decide what people want, tell people what they want, but rarely, if ever, offer a referendum on the subject. And on this alone they also get bipartisian support because nobody dares look weak on terrorism, so there's no possible vote against it.