I would say it depends on your interpretation of MSM.

Fear clicks links.

fear sells everything

it sells guns too

Sex sells things better.

actually it doesn't

people forget what products are in sexy ads

I could say, the 15th Century equivalent of the MSM would be the church scaring people about Satan.

the issue is seclusion,

People listen to the media and the media sells them fear 24/7
People don't go outside and talk to their neighbors, or go to the park and see people just doing people things

chat's so fast... hahaha

unless your logo is a hot naked chick

they remember that

So they get a warped view of reality

we survale the population because we dont trust witness testimony as much as we use to. in the past witness testimony was our method of servalence. "you saw a crime, who was the perp?" servalence is basicly an effert to keep a witness bias out of the case though doesent do anything about the bias of those witnessing the servailence. basicly though theres never been a community on earth where your identity was not tracked by someone and if your identity was a problem to someone and they reported you to the arbitrator of the local mob then that arbitrator would make the choice of what happens to you based on the servalience given to them

you people dont realize technology doesent actually do much new in society, it simply replaces people

^

Yet even in an age of surveillance, personal bias is still a factor.

(And we are back to automation)

as i said

doesent make it any more previlent though

if you dont have servalience you have witnesses

Well,

camera's are just more witnesses

that don't sleep

don't forget

and are always in 240p 😄

True, but does that make it okay?

It's a philosophical point, isn't it?

At what point does it become okay to be invasive in favor of security? At which point does said security begin to violate the 4th Amendment as well?

i actually dont avocate for ctvs to be put everywhere, im simply arguing that it doesent actually give the government as much power as you think

relitive to what they actually have always had

Orwell ~might~ would disagree with that.,

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.