exactly. that's why i think this is interesting to think about.
every time the enforcers add another camera, it's another chip off our privacy, right?
but, when people monitor the authorities, it's called a watchdog group, and that gives no heebie-jeebies intrinsically. usually it's a comfort.
when a governance is set up, checks and balances are generally agreed to be a good thing.
if set up improperly, this is utterly dystopian.
if set up well, it could help alleviate police abuse of power.
if not set up at all.....well. actually, i don't think that's an option.
we're in an age of ubiquitous recording, and although a very big part of me wants to thrash and screech, it feels that wishing this away is about as useful as wishing away nuclear bombs.
right now, the only people that have a 24/7 record or their lives are MIT geeks that like to pretend that they live on a giant cubic spaceship and have blinking LEDs on their clothes and 15 pounds of computing hardware in their fanny pack. oh wait. that was years ago. now it's feasible for it to be done without looking much like a dork if you put some effort into it. pretty soon, it'll be no more than a choice to pay .99$ for the app that utilizes the hardware that's already in place. when this happens, i imagine just about everyone will opt for it, except for luddites and people that feel important from being contrary.
with that in mind, it would seem odd to have everyone's perspective be a matter of personal record that they can access, and yet police be required to act in a metaphorical oubliette. from that perspective, it kinda sounds sinister for them to not have cameras.
so a new question in that context then isn't, 'should this be done?', but how should it be done...
