If you're only reading the stories of the false positives or the abuses of power, you're making your judgements on only a fraction of the available information.
I think the suffering/abuse is able to be reasonably controlled through increased/better oversight, more publicly available information, and more strict regulations around the use of the data produced by these devices.
I also think they're able to impart a whole lot of good on their communities. If they contribute to an increase in the number of arrests and convictions for crimes, that might end up being a net good.
I think starting from the assumption that they are net bad, and then telling me I should only look at the negatives is an uncompelling argument.
I need not look further than the testimony of people who used to commit crimes in areas with increased surveillance (i.e., San Francisco), and I see a compelling argument for their upsides. Now I have to weigh the positives and negatives against each other, and it stops being the clear-cut argument you're disingenuously presenting it as.
> If you're only reading the stories of the false positives or the abuses of power, you're making your judgements on only a fraction of the available information.
If you're only reading the stories of the homosexual people in Germany in the 1940s, you're making your judgements on only a fraction of the available information.
I think starting from "put surveillance cameras everywhere, because IF they contribute to a number of arrests that MIGHT end up being a net good" is an uncompelling argument.
How about you give me your bank account details and permission to make free use of all your money, and then IF I contribute more value with your money than you do that MIGHT end up being a net good, so let's try it first and find out later?
"stop reading about the abuses of power, just ignore them" is a really poor position to take.
> I think starting from "put surveillance cameras everywhere, because IF they contribute to a number of arrests that MIGHT end up being a net good" is an uncompelling argument.
I'm not starting from this argument, though. I'm starting from the argument that we shouldn't be inherently opposed to putting up more of we think the benefit outweighs the negatives or risks of abuse
Your level of strawmanning here tells me you're not arguing in good faith
I think the suffering/abuse is able to be reasonably controlled through increased/better oversight, more publicly available information, and more strict regulations around the use of the data produced by these devices.
I also think they're able to impart a whole lot of good on their communities. If they contribute to an increase in the number of arrests and convictions for crimes, that might end up being a net good.
I think starting from the assumption that they are net bad, and then telling me I should only look at the negatives is an uncompelling argument.
I need not look further than the testimony of people who used to commit crimes in areas with increased surveillance (i.e., San Francisco), and I see a compelling argument for their upsides. Now I have to weigh the positives and negatives against each other, and it stops being the clear-cut argument you're disingenuously presenting it as.