[rexpop]

> won't be free of occasional abuse or over-enforcement

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?

[The5thElephant]

> Another way of saying this is that unacceptable tyranny will roll in on a tread of acceptable compromises.

That's a very black and white way of looking at things. We have vastly more surveillance today by businesses, governments, AND private individuals on each other. There have been abuses that have been exposed and fought against, there have been exposes due to this surveillance of powerful people who otherwise would not have been discovered in their corruptions or misdeeds. Surveillance is a tool, not just something used by the powerful against the weak. It can and will be used for good and bad.

I am familiar with the arguments made against policing, and agree it needs significant reforms, but don't agree with the approach the defund the police, abolish prisons, and ACAB groups take even if I understand where they are coming from. They are very effective however at making the average person dismiss progressive thinking instead of actually consider their otherwise valid points.

> You seem to be under the misapprehension that only surveillance can reduce violence.

It's not just about violence, and surveillance is only one of many tools a society uses to regulate itself. Can you suggest to me what tool, process, or policy would be able to track down a kidnapper faster than having a few more available cameras would? Nothing after the fact is going to be more effective than knowing where the person was when it happened and where they went.

We can discuss and likely agree on all sorts of policies that can help mitigate violence and social problems BEFORE they happen, but that won't make you feel better when your kid is gone already. What if drones ARE the safe way to improve policing? You get eyes on the scene without a fallible and scared human trained to shoot before thinking.

[rexpop]

> I understand where they are coming from.

I remain unconvinced.

> It's not just about violence... to track down a kidnapper

I hate to be pedantic, but I don't understand by what definition kidnapping is not violence.

> what tool, process, or policy would be able to track down a kidnapper[?]

How about some preventative measures? For context, I believe the gross bulk of kidnappings are by family members, especially estranged parents. This could be remedied by addressing the irrational fears, anxieties, insecurities, and resentments that lead to acts of domestic violence. Such remedies might take the form of mental health courses in schools, or themese incorporated into media. Imagine if, instead of quoting dumb jokes from The Office, we quoted CBT-informed triggers for coping mechanisms that could de-escalate our central nervous arousal and re-target our attention to more productive efforts such as applying for the job which might win us back legal custody.

Edit: I checked. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention estimates that approximately 203,000 children a year are abducted by a family member, which accounts for 78% of all child kidnappings in the U.S.