orwell didint grow up in salem

like i asked, at what point is catching a murderer no longer that important to you? At what point, as a business owner, is it not worth it to catch a thief and get back stolen goods?

Keep in mind, "as much power as you think" is subjective and immeasurable. Government will seek power where it can get it.

This is proven by history.

The moment catching a murderer requires the impinging of civil liberties, including privacy, its a bridge too far.

There are compromises to make, but we shoudl always err on the side of privacy

You lot are conflating a lot of each others ground here and crafting an "all or nothing" scenario here,

surveilance should be done outside private property (unless authorised)

problem solved?

Yep. It's just like the Patriot Act, which is fundamentally unconstitutional.

It's not an "all or nothing" scenario so much as it is attempting to curtail a growth of state power before it can become totalitarian.

If you approach such ideas with a shrug "this time", it eventually snowballs.

we're a bit past that point alraedy, about 20 years?

I would agree with that, sure.

just live in a mafia run part of a town, no longer need to worry about the government

...and why is that?

I'm actively trying to avoid those. I'm rational enough to know there is legitimate call for some metadata retention.. And noone is really saying that tracking down a murderer can't be done with metadata... But My point remains is the bias should be toward the protection of liberty and privacy. not the increased power of the states surveillance machine.

Could it be that government is corruptible and very, very bias?

Its because people stopped caring,
They get the 3 emotional fixes in life,

Entertainment, Food, Social contact

As long as you give the people those 3, they'll give you power

@Timcast I hope you saw the video I posted yesterday. I left a SuperChat yesterday about a news story that I've been working on.

@Starscream92 (ChefLeopard) could you repost?

OK. Hold up.

tyvm

Also mass surveilence doesn't work

I think that would very from case-to-case

@ikillomega This is the video of an interview that four of us did on the Hard Bastard YouTube channel last month. @Canucklehead and I have been working on the story as YouTubers, and we had two Bernie delegate witnesses join from San Diego. @Timcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdynfibjB9o

Whether or not something works is entirely dependent on implementation and execution.

Thank you @Starscream92 (ChefLeopard)

Also, Hard Bastard is awesome.

@ikillomega yeah i write 4 his webpage.

I have 3 articles on this topic on it.

Oh good deal. You guys do good work.

The only way mass surveilence can work, is if you allow the authorities to presume guilt,
Which means you have to strip the "innocent until proven guilty" from society

I can't tell you how many times i've seen news reports on like european terrorists for example

where the police chief says "Yeah, we've had our eye on this person for a while"

or "The terrorist was known to police for former activities"

So you knew he was up to something, but you didn't do anything, because he didn't do anything chargable yet

@ikillomega if u can please watch the video and repost it here later, bc otherwise it gets lost in the chat and never seen.

I'm watching now at work between tasks. I will re-post if I remember too, hahaha. If it gets busy and I have to pause and return a lot, I may forget, but I'll try to make it a point share again. Thanks for the good work!

ctv survalience is probably a very useful system consitering how many businesses adopted it before it even became manditory security in the uk

you mean cctv?

yeah sorry, people say the cc so fast it sounds just like a c to me

thats private use, not public

ctv sound like som tv channel