|
|
|
|
|
by The5thElephant
743 days ago
|
|
Many people hold values like this that are immediately dismissed once the technology in question can save something or someone they truly hold dear. I very much understand and share the fears of a surveillance state. I would also throw those fears out the window if it meant a drone could find or track someone who kidnapped my child or loved one (and I can think of many even more horrifying examples). I think the reality is far from the dystopic panopticon people imagine and also won't be free of occasional abuse or over-enforcement that will likely be mitigated by citizen pushback and regulation. I think people who talk about it the way you do are being quite hyperbolic and don't actually do a good job of swaying people to their argument. |
|
Another way of saying this is that unacceptable tyranny will roll in on a tread of acceptable compromises.
> I very much understand and share the fears of a surveillance state.
I'm not convinced you do, as "over-enforcement" is a totally inadequate term for the extant systemic oppression even organic policing imposes. Have you read The End of Policing, yet, or The New Jim Crow, or even watched the documentary 13th?
> the technology in question can save something
Maybe it can, but maybe so can something else. Something less costly, less constricting. You seem to be under the misapprehension that only surveillance can reduce violence. Well, that's one set of social relations, but can you think of any others?