[wealthyyy]

Everyone was afraid that someone was watching them, but they are missing the fact that it's is difficult to watch everyone. Even with algorithms, I don't think it's possible.

Essentially, I believe the three letter agencies are pattern oriented when it comes to tracking.

[zentiggr]

And that is even a worse problem than in=person surveillance.

The more societal functions are automated, the more ways individuals can be effectively screwed and no one in authority can say anything except "well, you were flagged so you must be guilty".

Until we push back against that as well, and then we run right back into the "They came for..." problem.

[Spooky23]

En masse, probably not. But there are plenty of public accounts of how camera networks (or a combo of cameras + lpr) can track individual movements.

If you drive from Miami to Montreal, US CBP or Homeland Security has breadcrumbs of your trip the whole way. Camera tracking is possible and is just a matter of funding.

[reaperducer]

it's is difficult to watch everyone. Even with algorithms, I don't think it's possible.

It's already happening. The Chicago Police Department doesn't have to have 70,000 people watching its 70,000 cameras. It just has several dozen. The computer decides if something looks (or sounds — some have microphones) suspicious, then routes that video feed to a human to look at.

The problem is that we train our computers with "AI" (a word we should stop using) that has biases.

[wealthyyy]

That's what I implied on my last sentence. Pattern-oriented tracking.

[jtdev]

Are you dismissing the potential for this to be abused because (we assume) the technology doesn't support mass biometric identification surveillance today? If so, you should know that technology has shown a propensity for rapid evolution.