|
|
|
|
|
|
by pbhjpbhj
5727 days ago
|
|
|
>Their job is not to surveil the citizenry for signs of aberrant behavior. So practically then you're saying most crime should just be allowed to happen as it can't be detected without taking a proactive approach. For example, CCTV at a gas station shouldn't be installed until after the place is robbed. I'm expecting the come back to be "Oh, but that's a private business, it's only bad if government do it?". Why is it bad if the government (ie the people working en masse) try to prevent harm to private citizens but not bad for individual or small groups of citizens? |
|
|
Where any approach to law enforcement conflicts with the fundamental principles of ordered liberty, including privacy, that approach is improper. If we attached video cameras to all citizens that would prevent a lot of crime, but it would be a tremendous violation of privacy rights.
"Why is it bad if the government.. try to prevent harm to private citizens but not bad for individual or small groups of citizens?"
Because the government is unlike any other organization. It has a monopoly on the use of force. If a gas station uses CCTV cameras, and I feel that violates my privacy, I can choose not to use that gas station. If the government decides to enact a law mandating installation of CCTV cameras in your living room, you can't refuse.