It does make sense. Police are not perfect saint-like beings, and the government is not composed of perfect beings either. I’m not sure what kind of person you are, but I’m sure there are some things you enjoy and partake in which some other social group really despises. If you’re religious, it may be militant atheists who despise you going to church. If you’re not religious, it may be militant theists who despise you not going to church. The point is, there’s probably some social cultures out there that hate you for the things that you love. Those people may not be in charge right now, but they might be one day. Those people can end up in police departments, as developers for these camera companies, as administrators for the database that collects information on where you drive and when. Those people, being imperfect as they are, may not always resist the temptation to use this system in a way to track down and identify people like you for doing whatever it is that you love and they hate. Now you end up on a list for that.
There’s no denying that sophisticated surveillance technology does make it easier to catch criminals and does legitimately protect from the threats those criminals pose. But surveillance technology, by it’s very nature, cannot surveil only the criminals - it has to surveil everyone to find the criminals. And the notion of what is criminal may change. If your favorite hobby becomes criminalized, or if the government criminalizes your identity itself, these beautifully effective tools are suddenly turned against you.
There is a happy medium to be found between giving your society tools to enforce the will of constituents, vs. giving your society tools that be too easily abused. Given that this tool is already being abused, it probably isn’t worth the benefits.
Hawke@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Username does not check out.
meco03211@lemmy.world 3 days ago
^for me, not for thee^ is missing from the name.