The language doesn't really cover things correctly.

You don't expect privacy in public in the sense that you might bump into other people that know who you are.

That doesn't automatically mean that you expect walking into a public area means a system will start investigating you and seeing if you match with crimes.

Assuming everyone in public is a suspect and continually investigating them, is a big change in how society works.

▲

ethagnawl 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's the same with all of these issues; the frog always gets boiled. In the same way the people who drafted the Constitution/Bill of Rights couldn't have imagined AR-15s, they could never have imagined a (practical) surveillance network capable of tracking people (historically and in real-time) in the way Flock, Axon and these other shady fucks do.

▲

bilbo0s 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>Assuming everyone in public is a suspect and continually investigating them, is a big change in how society works.

Well that's not exactly how it would work.

Everyone is tracked, but only certain people are watched. That added to the fact that any nation with a sufficiently complex legal system has no law abiding residents. You've always broken some law, somewhere.

So it would be more like:

>[Pick any person from] everyone in public [and the system has the capacity to list the reasons why that person] is a [criminal]

	▲	empyrrhicist 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		These systems aren't perfect recognition oracles - there are lots of errors, especially as you scale up the technology. At the end of the day, it's a probabilistic identification correlated to a stream with a mix of of reported or suspected crimes. Your framing completely misses the reality. I'd argue that the OP's language is a much better fit.
	▲	lp0_on_fire 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Everyone is tracked, but only certain people are watched. The "only certain people are watched" hinges on pinky swears, winks, and nods. IMO it's a distinction without a difference.