[avery-dawn]

> That doesn't mean its worth it.

Just the presence of surveillance alone discourages criminals from acting in the first place. Without any surveillance, I don't think criminal activity will increase by just .000001%.

[shrimp_emoji]

In the case of (PUBLIC) meatspace, physical surveillance (e.g., cameras), I'm onboard with the Big Brother panopticon state. Bad, meaningful stuff happens in meatspace, like explosions.

When it comes to cyberspace, digital surveillance, I fled Windows for Linux and read /r/StallmanWasRight. Bad stuff happens in cyberspace, but none of it is meaningful enough to me to warrant the limitations to privacy that we endure IRL.

Does anyone else have this arbitrary configuration of opinions?

[somebodythere]

But the purpose of cyberspace surveillance is to collect evidence for crimes committed in meatspace.

[MaxBarraclough]

> Just the presence of surveillance alone discourages criminals from acting in the first place.

What's this based on?

From a quick google, it seems there isn't a clear consensus that this is the case.