|
You've made a great point here, and certainly this should be involved in conversations about police wearing body cams. I'm still for body cams, though-- the inherent trustworthiness of the police's word must be ended permanently, and there is only one way to make that so. Eventually the video from body cams will be scraped for ID information, which can then be cross referenced with the cell phone data they pull from the local Stingray or dustbox. They've got your name, your face, your digital communications, and your physical location tracked over time, controlled at the metro level, all without any kind of warrant/oversight or consent from you. Pair this with an ARGOS equipped drone, and you could easily show a live map of where "problematic" individuals are. Reaching that point is a totalitarian panopticon, and 100% enforcement of the law becomes possible, criminalizing everyone. At what point does the complex of this technology constitute a search/seizure that requires a warrant? At what point does this complex of technology constitute an unreasonable search or seizure? When does this cross the line into being illegal or unconstitutional, if we aren't already there? I mean, there's no legal participation needed to follow me around all day via a sky camera, snoop my communications all day for content and metadata, note all of my purchases, note all my interactions with others, note my general state when in view of police body cams, and generally scrutinize me 100% of the time. I would also take this moment to note that these issues are separate from the NSA-related dragnet, though they are indeed likely to be integrated into it eventually. The body cams and police technology are about physical surveillance and enforcing physical compliance and "orderliness". The NSA is about enforcing and surveying ideological and norm compliance. |