You need surveillance. How are you going to catch criminals? It is a crucial piece of evidence. We demand cops turn on their bodycams for accountability. Imagine how much more crime and corruption cops would get away with if there was no surveillance. Think… Think… Think…
You are so close to getting it.
Define “criminals.”
This is how people justify surveillance states.
What you actually get is “accountability for thee, none for me”, because people with power get to turn the cameras off whenever they want.
Just look at !Epsteinfiles@lemmy.world to see how easy for people with money and power to [REDACTED].
We don’t need (state) surveillance (on citizens).
We need (citizen) surveillance (on the the state).
The problem is the state, not the surveillance. Surveillance does have legitimate societal benefits, but like any tool what matters is how it’s used.
I agree that the (primary) problem is the state.
We’re talking about surveillance in the context of a surveillance empire, not just cops having bodycams (that they they can turn off at will).
Surveillance at scale is like giving a chronic pain patient a freezer full of fentanyl.
With perfect discipline, it’s not a problem. It’s effective pain medication that they’ll only use when they need it.
They will always find excuses to “need” it.
