|
| ▲ | happytoexplain an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| This is like the "why drive if it's so dangerous" fallacy. We trade cost for value, downsides for upsides, risk for reward. Cars and phones are highly valuable to normal people. Virtually all people do not experience immediate, constant, concrete benefits from public camera surveillance. And this is not even to mention that Flock cameras are more abused than phones (although scale makes that subjective, it's kind of apples-to-oranges right now). Analogies are distracting. They are rhetorical junk food. Make an argument directly supporting Flock cameras - don't just say "it's like phones". |
|
| ▲ | ceejayoz an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Well, we need laws and oversight to stop these actions. Do you think this hasn't been tried? We have laws on stalking. We've tried to rein in cops. |
|
| ▲ | bigyabai an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| We have laws and oversight surrounding phone surveillance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_interception Just like you say, it still gets abused both within and outside the government (eg. Salt Typhoon) because surveillance inherently threatens society. |
| |
| ▲ | IncreasePosts an hour ago | parent [-] | | Shouldn't we get rid of phones then? | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | More to your point, shouldn't we arrest anyone without a phone? It's unfair that criminals can opt-out of surveillance, while Senators and CEOs cannot. |
|
|
