[fixermark]

Sounds like you live in one of the neighborhoods that doesn't have a rampant theft problem, but okay. ;)

FWIW, the bias I approach this from is that we can't order packages delivered to my relatives because petty theft is so rampant in their area that packages will, on average, go missing. And the police are too underfunded to do anything about the new trend of theft right now. This technology would be life-changing in terms of convenience to them; it's a non-trivial expenditure of resources to schlep out to an Amazon pickup center of the post office to get anything large.

[toomuchtodo]

> Sounds like you live in one of the neighborhoods that doesn't have a rampant theft problem, but okay. ;)

My neighborhood does have the occasional Amazon package theft. Why do you assume consumer convenience is so important compared to fundamental rights?

> it's a non-trivial expenditure of resources to schlep out to an Amazon pickup center of the post office to get anything large.

This doesn't excuse the implementation of a surveillance machine.

[fixermark]

Where you see "consumer convenience," I see "breakdown of law and order" that this technology could help ameliorate.

I think we're just coming at this from different biases. You see the risk of abuse of power as much, much higher than street crime (if I take your "occasional" literally, then I humbly suggest you haven't experienced it to the level my relatives have). I see the threat of street crime as much, much higher than risk of abuse of power (because while those abuses do happen, they are so rare relative to the street crime this system could prevent that it's a viable tradeoff).

[toomuchtodo]

I agree.