[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Blef But the issue in this case is not necessarily that recording one thing will lead to recording all things, but rather the data being used for purposes other than what it was ostensibly intended for. That, and setting the precedent for monitoring in one area makes it easier to justify doing it in other contexts, and especially to building a case over the long term that people have no right to privacy, thus rendering the fourth amendment mostly moot. Hmmmm. Is that the slippery slope?

Well, not really. But when we make the assumption that surveillance will be abused i.e. it won't be used for purposes of minimizing violent crime, we're assuming that government is an inherently evil entity. Often, they're just looking out for the demos.

Quote by: Blef There are other possible deterrents to murder that are less invasive than government surveillance. For example, if all people were armed all the time and were adept at defending themselves, I think that too would deter attackers, and probably much better than a camera would. Armed and alert people can prevent crime and put a quick stop to it when it occurs. Cameras can merely record it.

That might be impractical because it's at such a general scale, and even if it did occur, there might be more potential for criminals. What would happen if there are some citizens who don't get armed, strong, etc.? If you allow the government to do the duty of protecting welfare, then you make a small-scale change that has just as much effect as such as large-scale change. But then again, small-scale abuse leads to the whole system being abused if the government has control.

Quote by: Blef By public domain, I assume until you tell me otherwise that you mean what is generally referred to as public property. That is, any property that isn't private. Streets, parks, waterways, and so forth. Who owns this public property? If the government can conduct surveillance of such areas, can you or I do the same? I mean on a permanent basis, like the government does. If we're not abusing the surveillance, then it's not really hurting anybody.

I don't the government let's private citizens do that to public property. By "public," it means government is a representative of all the constituents. Then again, perhaps private surveillance might be allowed on an individual basis, just as bounty hunters are allowed to go after criminals. But the government should ensure that the private citizens aren't criminals themselves.

Quote by: Blef By the way, how can you tell whether or not someone is abusing their surveillance?

If they're not using it to solely deter violent crime or perhaps crime in general. We may not be able to realize it, but if the government is forced to reveal all its surveillance activities to any citizens or watchdog groups who want to look it up, then information should be made available. Open government can still exist with surveillance activities stopping criminals.

Quote by: Blef Who should conduct the surveillance? Why the government? Why shouldn't it be you or me? It could be sort of like the "Adopt a HIghway" program... "Adopt a Crime-Prone Area", maybe.

Like I said, it may relieve the burden on government if some private citizens take over the job, but government is the ultimate representative of the demos, so one can say that the obligation of public welfare lies with the government. There are many ways to look at it, though, and corruption is still possible regardless of who's in control.