You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Mass Camera Surveillance Can Take Down Statism - NUTS! CRAZY! Or is it?
Your arguments aren't good enough to convince us.
OK. Those of us who do want to set up cameras in private places for security, as we are, can continue to do so, and network with each other to provide access when crimes are created, allowing access to the areas cameras whent hey agree to join that network. No access is open for view without a crime existing in the area. That would be a restricted way of doing it that would still allow everyone to verify criminal reports.
Now, here's the question: in order to implement this, you're going to have to force it upon those of us who object.
That was your assumption. You think I'm a statist :P You made your own straw man and confused yourself. Peace.
Dude, it's not about calling you a statist or any stupid label. Its about a contradiction in what you were advocating for, vs. what the stated goals are. I read that you advocated for total public surveillance, and that total surveillance is OK so long as everyone has open access to the footage. However, my gripe is that if not everyone wants total public surveillance, then you have to force it upon those who don't in order to achieve what you're advocating for. And now you're "moving the goalpost", suddenly advocating for a private-only system, with restricted access, and then accusing me of building a straw man!