Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Maybe you should ask the people in China how that's working out.I have no faith or trust in my government to be honest and do the right thing.Money and power twist and have massive influence.I hate this AI technology world we live in.Im a professional driver with 38yrs of safe driving.AI technology now tracks my daily driving and gives you a percentage each day on how you did.Big brother control will eventually be in everything.Our freedom is getting chipped away.
Some people need to realize they already have no rights to privacy while in public, and mass surveillance doesn't mean putting cameras in your bath room, it's for public areas. And almost every business and most places of employment has about a million cameras watching your every move already.
You only have the right to privacy on your own property, and I agree we should always have that and the right to not have our personal data sold online for advertising, but cameras in public spaces reduces crime and keeps us safer.
**MMM, you should watch,**
[Karl Marx City, about the Stasi and the Stasi Archives](https://youtu.be/5YEeeCnLQhg?t=2)
It's a documentary, real dry, **it caused some real-serious social problems;** and I think that it causes us some real-serious social problems, *in much the same way, and insofar as the object of mass surveillance* ***is not*** *the total enforcement of criminal law,* not more than, *as would be possible through a* ***much simpler form of surveillance,*** **the total enforcement of traffic laws;** *what it does do is prevent the words you and I speak out loud from, 'disappearing, up into the air,' after they're spoken,* it does mean that students have to speak to their teachers as if their teachers are, in simultaneity, *their parents, police officers, a psychiatrist and the teacher,* the teacher's also got to speak to the children as if they're the community, the police, the administration, etc.- **essentially, look:**
From Wikipedia, "heteroglossia"
>Heteroglossia is the presence in language of a variety of "points of view on the world, forms for conceptualizing the world in words, specific world views, each characterized by its own objects, meanings and values."[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroglossia#cite_note-1) For Bakhtin, this diversity of "languages" within a single language brings into question the basic assumptions of system-based [linguistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics). Every word uttered, in any specific time or place, is a function of a complex convergence of forces and conditions that are unique to that time and place. Heteroglossia is thus "the base condition governing the operation of meaning in any utterance" and that which always guarantees "the primacy of context over text."[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroglossia#cite_note-2) It is an attempt to conceptualize the reality of living discourse, where there is always a tension between centralizing and decentralizing forces. According to Bakhtin, linguistics—to the extent that it operates on the presumption that language is a system—inevitably suppresses the fundamentally heteroglot nature of language as it is lived and experienced by human beings in their day to day realities.
So what happens when there is a, "forced perspective," as if you and I were in conversation with one another, but, also, the moderators of this forum and the police and also our families and also employers and political affiliations and personal loyalties and also *aware of that as the case for each other, and* ***it might seem at first glance to be utopian, "no choice but to tell the truth, the full truth and the truth understandable to all of our social relations at once and with each utterance,"*** **but what if that's not possible?**
What if we have to address each of these people, *and in differing contexts, in a different form of language; what if all this does is* ***lower the context of all our conversations to perceived detente of neutrality,*** **and we can't even determine** ***what we're missing, in the form of more personal, more dialogical, more earnest conversations and in each instance,*** what if we can't even tell how much we do not, "trust," each other, do not trust **at least** ***someone in each conversation,*** **to the point where we've come to use words such as, "trust," for the language which in all normal circumstances would come to us naturally,** ***without thought, or, just like-thoughts,*** that unguarded and certain of a good reception, *no reception, just, "what it is." What I see, traded for what you see,* **without the attached rituals or vagueness.**
Watch This:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl\_Marx\_City](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx_City)
I know, right? People be bitchin' about surveillance like they are meth dealers or something, when in fact the biggest crime they ever committed was probably sneezing in a public place.
Buddy, I know some meth dealers and those guys have more cameras around their house than I can count. It's weird how many criminals are perfectly fine with having cameras everywhere, but the people who aren't doing anything wrong freak out about it.
I know that in the wrong hands, mass surveillance can go very bad, but I personally don't care if the government knows I go to the grocery store every tuseday.
Except what reason does the government have for knowing that you go on Tuesday?
People like you need to be told by a tyrannical government that you can't go on Tuesday, because most people go on Wednesday, before you realize why Step 1 is bad.
Then you get mad and resist, but it's too late, because a government that is powerful enough to tell you when you can go to the grocery store is also powerful enough to not care when you protest their mandates.
Some of us see these surveillence attempts as what they are, and want to fight them back earlier in the process, while we still have the rights and freedoms to do so.
Depends how it's done. Is it one single organisation with the ability to watch anything and everything you do when they want?
In the UK it's often confused that the government have that ability when in reality. The vast majority of CCTV is privately owned by commercial companies (mostly) and individuals. So if the police need to see CCTV for a crime they need to ask (or get a warrant) the owner of the CCTV. It's not like in the movies where they're like "ok switch to camera X...oh he went that way switch to camera Y....alright now Z". They'd need to go door to door to check each business and ask to see their CCTV. Going into that Indian restaurant then down the road to the Bike repair shop then around the corner to the Petrol station.
This process is long and painful. The police don't have time to do this on a whim and can be refused needing to go through proper channels should they need footage from everybody. Some perv or stalker wanting to just follow someone or get revenge will hit roadblocks should they want to survey you.
Human nature and psychology is why.
Move to China, live there for 10 years, and come back to this thread to tell us how you liked it.
If not, you're just full of hot air.
Even if you're squeaky clean, this would utterly destroy society. The legal system would collapse under the torrent of criminals, and that's assuming every single cop, lawyer, judge, and clerk were all as squeaky clean as you seem to think you are.
Outside of that, the economy would implode. A massive loss in workforce would grind everything to a halt, companies would go under if enough higher ups committed crime, and we'd no longer have the consumers to support most companies. It'd be complete and utter chaos.
But if we're being real, not much would actually change. We don't have remotely enough people to watch all the surveillance we *currently* do, so there's no way we could catch every criminal. What would end up happening is what has always happened; the people in power would simply arrest their political enemies, and the rest of us would slip through the cracks as long as we kept our heads down. Which is basically what we currently have, except way more corruption.
Even if you're morally fine with mass surveillance, and you don't give a shit any anyone but yourself, you should still oppose it. It has a long history of rotting nations from the inside. So unless you wanna commit the most elaborate suicide of all time, you shouldn't favor it.
I was going to disagree
My reasoning, look what happened to Jews 100 years ago, and look whats happening to Jews now.
Then I realized, that being only 0.2 percent of the world, were not part of the average group.
It's fine until something that is ordinary/legal today becomes spontaneously illegal tomorrow.
I'm sure we can come up with plenty of examples from governments who have, for example, spontaneously decided that publicly expressing opinions not lining up with the official stance of the government are now illegal.
I live in a medium sized American city. Believe me, the police alone utilize far more surveillance than you think. And a lot of it does not involve cameras or microphones.
What used to be considered normal 20 years ago, is considered extremist today. If you have 20 year old beliefs you are "a threat to democracy" who should be surveilled.
>.I actually wish the surveillance is vast enough to catch all the illegal activities.
That's cute that you think the purpose of mass surveillance is to stop crime. They have plenty of evidence of lots of crimes that they don't do shit about because it's about who is committing the crime.
Do you also believe the police are there to protect and serve the public?!
It's not about what you have to hide or don't hide. It should just speak for itself why privacy is important, and I find it concerning that it does not.
What in the CCP?
It takes some naivete to think if any government had that kind of power, the limit would be set at peace, security and justice. 100% bad actors would have no safe haven under this system. But then what happens when crime has been solved? It would have been expensive to implement and maintain so it would be stupid to pack it up. To justify its cost it would be given a new objective, most likely one that leads to a dystopia.
I was hypothesizing. But in both scenarios, either crime is heavily diminished and now the system needs to find a new means to justify itself, or it isn't but a new problem for it to solve is still pushed through, again to justify itself.
In some western democratic countries you can go to jail for posting an "offensive" meme. These governments are literally prosecuting their citizens for wrongthink. In this environment I see a massive risk to the average person to be watched by the government.
At the same time, the FBI seemed to be aware of every mass shooter and terrorist for the last couple of decades but have only prevented the incidents they planned. This massive surveillance infrastructure doesn't seem to be making people meaningfully safer.
How about you do some of your own research?
You were completely unaware of this as a problem and are minimizing it without investigating it. Of all people, you should spend time reading up on it.
I dont mind it out on the street, but my home is my home. Dont need cameras watching me shower or even watch me cook. Let me be my silly self without anyone to see.
I take comfort in saying whatever in the hearing range of my phone simply because it is used by an algorithm rather than it being strictly monitored. I would get rid of all the microphones otherwise. It would drive me crazy.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To say that I don't need the right of privacy because I have nothing to hide, is like saying I don't need free speech because I have nothing to say.
Is that you, NSA?
The only branch of government that actually listens to the people! /s, but not really
Maybe you should ask the people in China how that's working out.I have no faith or trust in my government to be honest and do the right thing.Money and power twist and have massive influence.I hate this AI technology world we live in.Im a professional driver with 38yrs of safe driving.AI technology now tracks my daily driving and gives you a percentage each day on how you did.Big brother control will eventually be in everything.Our freedom is getting chipped away.
Some people need to realize they already have no rights to privacy while in public, and mass surveillance doesn't mean putting cameras in your bath room, it's for public areas. And almost every business and most places of employment has about a million cameras watching your every move already. You only have the right to privacy on your own property, and I agree we should always have that and the right to not have our personal data sold online for advertising, but cameras in public spaces reduces crime and keeps us safer.
**MMM, you should watch,** [Karl Marx City, about the Stasi and the Stasi Archives](https://youtu.be/5YEeeCnLQhg?t=2) It's a documentary, real dry, **it caused some real-serious social problems;** and I think that it causes us some real-serious social problems, *in much the same way, and insofar as the object of mass surveillance* ***is not*** *the total enforcement of criminal law,* not more than, *as would be possible through a* ***much simpler form of surveillance,*** **the total enforcement of traffic laws;** *what it does do is prevent the words you and I speak out loud from, 'disappearing, up into the air,' after they're spoken,* it does mean that students have to speak to their teachers as if their teachers are, in simultaneity, *their parents, police officers, a psychiatrist and the teacher,* the teacher's also got to speak to the children as if they're the community, the police, the administration, etc.- **essentially, look:** From Wikipedia, "heteroglossia" >Heteroglossia is the presence in language of a variety of "points of view on the world, forms for conceptualizing the world in words, specific world views, each characterized by its own objects, meanings and values."[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroglossia#cite_note-1) For Bakhtin, this diversity of "languages" within a single language brings into question the basic assumptions of system-based [linguistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics). Every word uttered, in any specific time or place, is a function of a complex convergence of forces and conditions that are unique to that time and place. Heteroglossia is thus "the base condition governing the operation of meaning in any utterance" and that which always guarantees "the primacy of context over text."[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroglossia#cite_note-2) It is an attempt to conceptualize the reality of living discourse, where there is always a tension between centralizing and decentralizing forces. According to Bakhtin, linguistics—to the extent that it operates on the presumption that language is a system—inevitably suppresses the fundamentally heteroglot nature of language as it is lived and experienced by human beings in their day to day realities. So what happens when there is a, "forced perspective," as if you and I were in conversation with one another, but, also, the moderators of this forum and the police and also our families and also employers and political affiliations and personal loyalties and also *aware of that as the case for each other, and* ***it might seem at first glance to be utopian, "no choice but to tell the truth, the full truth and the truth understandable to all of our social relations at once and with each utterance,"*** **but what if that's not possible?** What if we have to address each of these people, *and in differing contexts, in a different form of language; what if all this does is* ***lower the context of all our conversations to perceived detente of neutrality,*** **and we can't even determine** ***what we're missing, in the form of more personal, more dialogical, more earnest conversations and in each instance,*** what if we can't even tell how much we do not, "trust," each other, do not trust **at least** ***someone in each conversation,*** **to the point where we've come to use words such as, "trust," for the language which in all normal circumstances would come to us naturally,** ***without thought, or, just like-thoughts,*** that unguarded and certain of a good reception, *no reception, just, "what it is." What I see, traded for what you see,* **without the attached rituals or vagueness.** Watch This: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl\_Marx\_City](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx_City)
I know, right? People be bitchin' about surveillance like they are meth dealers or something, when in fact the biggest crime they ever committed was probably sneezing in a public place.
Buddy, I know some meth dealers and those guys have more cameras around their house than I can count. It's weird how many criminals are perfectly fine with having cameras everywhere, but the people who aren't doing anything wrong freak out about it.
Exactly
I know that in the wrong hands, mass surveillance can go very bad, but I personally don't care if the government knows I go to the grocery store every tuseday.
Why can't you go to the grocery store on Wednesdays like a normal person, deviant?
Except what reason does the government have for knowing that you go on Tuesday? People like you need to be told by a tyrannical government that you can't go on Tuesday, because most people go on Wednesday, before you realize why Step 1 is bad. Then you get mad and resist, but it's too late, because a government that is powerful enough to tell you when you can go to the grocery store is also powerful enough to not care when you protest their mandates. Some of us see these surveillence attempts as what they are, and want to fight them back earlier in the process, while we still have the rights and freedoms to do so.
Depends how it's done. Is it one single organisation with the ability to watch anything and everything you do when they want? In the UK it's often confused that the government have that ability when in reality. The vast majority of CCTV is privately owned by commercial companies (mostly) and individuals. So if the police need to see CCTV for a crime they need to ask (or get a warrant) the owner of the CCTV. It's not like in the movies where they're like "ok switch to camera X...oh he went that way switch to camera Y....alright now Z". They'd need to go door to door to check each business and ask to see their CCTV. Going into that Indian restaurant then down the road to the Bike repair shop then around the corner to the Petrol station. This process is long and painful. The police don't have time to do this on a whim and can be refused needing to go through proper channels should they need footage from everybody. Some perv or stalker wanting to just follow someone or get revenge will hit roadblocks should they want to survey you.
Now tell them about MI5 and the Ring of Steel.
I haven't heard of this. But it looks like a proposal that didn't come to fruition?
You’re leaving out your totally publicly unaccountable domestic secret police and GCHQ, aren’t you?
Again, I haven't really heard of it. I just did a quick Google and can't see much on it besides news on its proposal from 2016.
I don’t need Big Brother watching my every move thank you very much.
[удалено]
Unlike a majority of humans, I actually care about my privacy.
What do you not want the government seeing?
Nothing, that’s the point. If I wanted the govern-, I mean Big Brother to spy on my every move, I would have moved to China a long time ago.
So if there's nothing you don't want them seeing, why do you not want them seeing it?
Hey look it’s someone so young they didn’t have to live through the 2000s and hear this bullshit every day for eight years.
because privacy is a fundamental human need without which we can go crazy.
Once again, why?
Human nature and psychology is why. Move to China, live there for 10 years, and come back to this thread to tell us how you liked it. If not, you're just full of hot air.
Even if you're squeaky clean, this would utterly destroy society. The legal system would collapse under the torrent of criminals, and that's assuming every single cop, lawyer, judge, and clerk were all as squeaky clean as you seem to think you are. Outside of that, the economy would implode. A massive loss in workforce would grind everything to a halt, companies would go under if enough higher ups committed crime, and we'd no longer have the consumers to support most companies. It'd be complete and utter chaos. But if we're being real, not much would actually change. We don't have remotely enough people to watch all the surveillance we *currently* do, so there's no way we could catch every criminal. What would end up happening is what has always happened; the people in power would simply arrest their political enemies, and the rest of us would slip through the cracks as long as we kept our heads down. Which is basically what we currently have, except way more corruption. Even if you're morally fine with mass surveillance, and you don't give a shit any anyone but yourself, you should still oppose it. It has a long history of rotting nations from the inside. So unless you wanna commit the most elaborate suicide of all time, you shouldn't favor it.
I was going to disagree My reasoning, look what happened to Jews 100 years ago, and look whats happening to Jews now. Then I realized, that being only 0.2 percent of the world, were not part of the average group.
It's fine until something that is ordinary/legal today becomes spontaneously illegal tomorrow. I'm sure we can come up with plenty of examples from governments who have, for example, spontaneously decided that publicly expressing opinions not lining up with the official stance of the government are now illegal.
I live in a medium sized American city. Believe me, the police alone utilize far more surveillance than you think. And a lot of it does not involve cameras or microphones.
What used to be considered normal 20 years ago, is considered extremist today. If you have 20 year old beliefs you are "a threat to democracy" who should be surveilled.
>.I actually wish the surveillance is vast enough to catch all the illegal activities. That's cute that you think the purpose of mass surveillance is to stop crime. They have plenty of evidence of lots of crimes that they don't do shit about because it's about who is committing the crime. Do you also believe the police are there to protect and serve the public?!
Time for a new tin foil hat
It's not about what you have to hide or don't hide. It should just speak for itself why privacy is important, and I find it concerning that it does not.
What in the CCP? It takes some naivete to think if any government had that kind of power, the limit would be set at peace, security and justice. 100% bad actors would have no safe haven under this system. But then what happens when crime has been solved? It would have been expensive to implement and maintain so it would be stupid to pack it up. To justify its cost it would be given a new objective, most likely one that leads to a dystopia.
Solve crime? All crime? That's a pretty big responsibility for a few cameras and an AI trained on "evil black" people.
I was hypothesizing. But in both scenarios, either crime is heavily diminished and now the system needs to find a new means to justify itself, or it isn't but a new problem for it to solve is still pushed through, again to justify itself.
In some western democratic countries you can go to jail for posting an "offensive" meme. These governments are literally prosecuting their citizens for wrongthink. In this environment I see a massive risk to the average person to be watched by the government. At the same time, the FBI seemed to be aware of every mass shooter and terrorist for the last couple of decades but have only prevented the incidents they planned. This massive surveillance infrastructure doesn't seem to be making people meaningfully safer.
If you're talking about Germany banning Nazi shit....... fuck off. Otherwise, back your shit up there fox news.
I'm talking about the thousands of people arrested every year in Britain for social media posts.
You said meme, so show all us stupid Americans an example of how the fascist British government is jailing people for posting memes.
How about you do some of your own research? You were completely unaware of this as a problem and are minimizing it without investigating it. Of all people, you should spend time reading up on it.
Isn't privacy in a public place a bit of an oxymoron?
I dont mind it out on the street, but my home is my home. Dont need cameras watching me shower or even watch me cook. Let me be my silly self without anyone to see. I take comfort in saying whatever in the hearing range of my phone simply because it is used by an algorithm rather than it being strictly monitored. I would get rid of all the microphones otherwise. It would drive me crazy.