[dredmorbius]

Well, until it gets so cheap there's no way to know whose glasses or jacket contains a gun capable of shooting you dead on the street. This sort of thing is like the tide coming in: legislation against it can only ultimately be effective by severe restriction on allowed technologies for the people of the country.

Substitute whatever anti-social mechanism you prefer.

The drone wars are coming: pilotless aircraft, possibly autonomous, from the size of a small car to the size of a gnat, with intel or lethal payloads.

Bioweapons or nukes. We've had suitcase nukes for a few decades, fortunately they haven't been used. Suitcase-sized conventional explosives are rather frequently deployed in some parts. Weaponized chemicals or biological agents are another option.

It's trivially possible to adulter drugs or drinks. Some of the oldest laws on the books deal with food and alcohol purity.

Having the technical capability to do something doesn't mean it must needs be accepted. Legal sanctions may be swimming upstream at times, but other norms (social, cultural, religions. technological) generally help keep us from tearing one another to pieces, most of the time.

[rue]

I certainly suspect that most people make a distinction between shooting someone, and videotaping someone. This leads me to believe that surreptitious surveillance would be a far more widespread problem than random shootings.

[dredmorbius]

Surreptitious surveillance to what ends?

If the <i>use</i> of any of that data -- for profiling, legal process, advertising, contact, etc. -- is prohibited, and the action of performing the surveillance exposes the entity to plausible legal consequences and/or obligations (notification, deletion requests, etc.), then its practice will be limited. Undisclosed phone recording in some states, for example (not admissible in legal processes, a violation of law of itself, etc.).

Much crime is economically motivated (not all, but much). Part of criminal theory revolves around making crime more expensive (to greater or lesser success, depending). There's an economic study of criminal activity as well.

Businesses tend not to undertake activities for which there isn't a net economic benefit. Shareholder obligations and all that. So yes, with an appropriate legal framework in place, it's quite likely that incentives for engaging in certain behaviors will be limited.

[randallsquared]

Undisclosed phone recording in some states, for example (not admissible in legal processes, a violation of law of itself, etc.).

Laws like this are a legacy of a time before it was easier to just record everything that happens to a person or in an area than to make decisions about what to record. We're still in the tail end of that era, but only just.

Much crime is economically motivated (not all, but much).

It's estimated that the average American commits three felonies a day (but if you start thinking about this topic and the people around you, it will escalate sharply, since failure to report a felony you know about is itself a felony...). Given this, I think we can safely say that the vast majority of crime in the US is completely incidental and unknowingly committed. Even if laws about recording other people (like police and audio callers) remain on the books, the ubiquity and silence of continuous recording will mean that it falls into the list of things that people do all the time that the state technically bans.