[PJDK]

I think one of the reasons people don't like the idea is this very reason.

It's coming from the position "someone is likely to do me wrong and I will be collecting evidence with that in mind". That in itself is a pretty aggressive position to take - but once you interact with someone it then says "_you_ are likely to do me wrong".

[gpm]

It's not a position of "someone is likely to do me wrong", it's a position of "someone is likely to do society wrong". Interacting with someone isn't an accusation...

It's a well supported position by the fact that I seem to witness theft (bikes, from cars, etc) in plain view on the street with a frequency of about once a year. Double that if you include things like hit and runs on parked cars that aren't exactly malicious but more crimes of opportunity.

I suspect that frequency is higher for me than for most people - simply because I walk a lot and I live downtown in a big city (Toronto). But if you change "6 monts to a year" to "3 - 6 years", applied over a city of a few million people that is still extremely significant.

I suspect things like police abuse of power are much rarer still, but the impact from them is so larger it's also a significant factor (why there is the huge movement for bodycams...).

[dsfyu404ed]

I think whether that position is reasonable depends on whether you see people as trustworthy by default or not.

Most people would not have a problem having every minute of their workday recorded if their job was handling gold bars or diamonds or something really high stakes.

Having even the most trivial interactions between people subject to a recording is inappropriate overkill if you believe people to be trustworthy.

It's like requiring a notarized bill of sale for a used laptop.

If you believe people to be untrustworthy by default then you would consider everyone having the ability to discreetly record any interaction with anyone else to be a net positive.