I think a discussion we're not having is how policing should exist moving forward given this technology exists for criminals as well.

We literally have people driving around with electromagnets on their license plates to cheat any number of perfectly reasonable traffic instruments. We have folks breaking into and going for joyrides in cars that lack engine immobilizers by exploiting them, then ditching them often after crashing.

I'm certainly fine with the folks who say we shouldn't have surveillance, but then how do we have law enforcement without hiring a literal army of police officers? We are effectively at the point where technology allows very small groups to massively exploit the general public.

In the vast majority of cases, we do not have the public funds to do law enforcement purely in person anymore. I suspect the alternative is not "greater liberty" but organized crime/vigilante justice.

▲

patrickmay 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> how do we have law enforcement without hiring a literal army of police officers?

Just like we did way back in 2023 before the massive nationwide rollout of Flock cameras.

A surveillance state is the antithesis of what the U.S. founders gave us. It is fundamentally illiberal.

	▲	scoofy 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		2023 was a pretty miserable year in SF, in large part, because organized crime was using modern reselling platforms to create wildly productive fencing operations, driving extreme increases in car break-ins and burglaries. This lead to a massive political shift towards stronger policing in the city, much of which has been facilitated by drone surveillance of groups engaging in burglaries without the dangers of high-speed car chases to the general public. I do not think “just go back” is anything other than a nostalgia for a world we no longer live in.