| A Surveillance state is not the same as police state. We already live in a surveillance state, but we are protected by three things: 1. The cost of arrest. Actually sending someone to pick the person up and put them in handcuffs, process and change them. 2. The cost of prosecution. Having lawyers build a case, schedule a judge and courtroom. 3. The cost of enforcement. Putting someone in prison or threatening to put them in prison if they don't pay back what is stolen. Tracking if they paid it back. If they get probation it is cheaper but a probation officer is required. These are expensive and use limited resources. Policing and governments prioritize these resources for more serious crimes like murder. Constitutional rights, including due process dramatically increase these costs. Mass surveillance made investigation and determining who did what for minor crimes done in public much much cheaper, so we just hit the next cost bottleneck. The solution to the enforcement bottleneck is automated enforcement. This will likely be rolled out over the next ten to twenty years. If you steal from a store, you get banned from the entire story chain. This means living life very difficult, so you pay a fine. It is likely that stores will make lots of mistakes and flag innocent people, but most people will pay the fine because it is more convenient. The situation is entirely different in a police state with no constitutional protections. The government can simply lock you out of everything you need to live because you did buy enough Dear Leader portraits this quarter. You can't use your car, can't call a ride share, can't catch a bus, can't buy food, can't get electricity to heat your house to keep your family comfortable. Instead of a fine, you need to walk to closest detention center, confess your guilt, lock yourself in and do manual labor and reeducation until the state allows you to leave. This system requires no guards. |