• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Mass Surveillance Technology And The Ethics Involved.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jonm1010

Banned
Ross McNutt has a superpower — he can zoom in on everyday life, then rewind and fast-forward to solve crimes in a shutter-flash. But should he?

In 2004, when casualties in Iraq were rising due to roadside bombs, Ross McNutt and his team came up with an idea. With a small plane and a 44 mega-pixel camera, they figured out how to watch an entire city all at once, all day long. Whenever a bomb detonated, they could zoom onto that spot and then, because this eye in the sky had been there all along, they could scroll back in time and see - literally see - who planted it. After the war, Ross McNutt retired from the airforce, and brought this technology back home with him. Manoush Zomorodi and Alex Goldmark from the podcast “Note to Self” give us the low-down on Ross’s unique brand of persistent surveillance, from Juarez, Mexico to Dayton, Ohio. Then, once we realize what we can do, we wonder whether we should.
EDITED: updated podcast that looks at Baltimore's early adaption
http://www.radiolab.org/story/updat...tm_medium=treatment&utm_campaign=morelikethis

source and accompanying podcast
http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/



DAYTON, Ohio — Shooter and victim were just a pair of pixels, dark specks on a gray streetscape. Hair color, bullet wounds, even the weapon were not visible in the series of pictures taken from an airplane flying two miles above.

But what the images revealed — to a degree impossible just a few years ago — was location, mapped over time. Second by second, they showed a gang assembling, blocking off access points, sending the shooter to meet his target and taking flight after the body hit the pavement. When the report reached police, it included a picture of the blue stucco building into which the killer ultimately retreated, at last beyond the view of the powerful camera overhead.

“I’ve witnessed 34 of these,” said Ross McNutt, the genial president of Persistent Surveillance Systems, which collected the images of the killing in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, from a specially outfitted Cessna. “It’s like opening up a murder mystery in the middle, and you need to figure out what happened before and after.”

As Americans have grown increasingly comfortable with traditional surveillance cameras, a new, far more powerful generation is being quietly deployed that can track every vehicle and person across an area the size of a small city, for several hours at a time. Although these cameras can’t read license plates or see faces, they provide such a wealth of data that police, businesses and even private individuals can use them to help identify people and track their movements.


Defense contractors are developing similar technology for the military, but its potential for civilian use is raising novel civil liberties concerns. In Dayton, where Persistent Surveillance Systems is based, city officials balked last year when police considered paying for 200 hours of flights, in part because of privacy complaints.

“There are an infinite number of surveillance technologies that would help solve crimes . . . but there are reasons that we don’t do those things, or shouldn’t be doing those things,” said Joel Pruce, a University of Dayton postdoctoral fellow in human rights who opposed the plan. “You know where there’s a lot less crime? There’s a lot less crime in China.”

The Supreme Court generally has given wide latitude to police using aerial surveillance as long as the photography captures images visible to the naked eye.

McNutt, a retired Air Force officer who once helped design a similar system for the skies above Fallujah, a battleground city in Iraq, hopes to win over officials in Dayton and elsewhere by convincing them that cameras mounted on fixed-wing aircraft can provide far more useful intelligence than police helicopters do, for less money.

A single camera mounted atop the Washington Monument, McNutt boasts, could deter crime all around the Mall. He said regular flights over the most dangerous parts of Washington — combined with publicity about how much police could see — would make a significant dent in the number of burglaries, robberies and murders. His 192-megapixel cameras would spot as many as 50 crimes per six-hour flight, he estimated, providing police with a continuous stream of images covering more than a third of the city.

“We watch 25 square miles, so you see lots of crimes,” he said. “And by the way, after people commit crimes, they drive like idiots.”


What McNutt is trying to sell is not merely the latest techno-wizardry for police. He envisions such steep drops in crime that they will bring substantial side effects, including rising property values, better schools, increased development and, eventually, lower incarceration rates as the reality of long-term overhead surveillance deters those tempted to commit crimes.

Dayton Police Chief Richard Biehl, a supporter of McNutt’s efforts, has proposed inviting the public to visit the operations center to get a glimpse of the technology in action.

“I want them to be worried that we’re watching,” Biehl said. “I want them to be worried that they never know when we’re overhead.”


McNutt, a suburban father of four with a doctorate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is not deaf to concerns about his company’s ambitions. Unlike many of the giant defense contractors that are eagerly repurposing wartime surveillance technology for domestic use, he sought advice from the American Civil Liberties Union in writing a privacy policy.

It has rules on how long data can be kept, when images can be accessed and by whom. Police are supposed to begin looking at the pictures only after a crime has been reported. Fishing expeditions are prohibited.

The technology has inherent limitations as well. From the airborne cameras, each person appears as a single pixel indistinguishable from any other person. What people are doing — even whether they are clothed or not — is impossible to see. As technology improves the cameras, McNutt said he intends to increase their range, not the precision of the imagery, so that larger areas can be monitored.

The notion that McNutt and his roughly 40 employees are peeping Toms clearly rankles. The company made a PowerPoint presentation for the ACLU that includes pictures taken to assist the response to Hurricane Sandy and the severe Iowa floods last summer. The section is titled: “Good People Doing Good Things.”

“We get a little frustrated when people get so worried about us seeing them in their backyard,” McNutt said in his operation center, where the walls are adorned with 120-inch monitors, each showing a different grainy urban scene collected from above. “We can’t even see what they are doing in their backyard. And, by the way, we don’t care.”

Yet in a world of increasingly pervasive surveillance, location and identity are becoming all but inextricable. One quickly leads to the other for those with the right tools.

During one of the company’s demonstration flights over Dayton in 2012, police got reports of an attempted robbery at a bookstore and shots fired at a Subway sandwich shop. The cameras revealed a single car moving between the two locations.

By reviewing the images frame by frame, analysts were able to help police piece together a larger story: A man had left a residential neighborhood at midday and attempted to rob the bookstore, but fled when somebody hit an alarm. Then he drove to Subway, where the owner pulled a gun and chased him off. His next stop was a Family Dollar Store, where the man paused for several minutes. He soon returned home, after a short stop at a gas station where a video camera captured an image of his face.

A few hours later, after the surveillance flight ended, the Family Dollar Store was robbed. Police used the detailed map of the man’s movements, along with other evidence from the crime scenes, to arrest him for all three crimes.

On another occasion, Dayton police got a report of a burglary in progress. The aerial cameras spotted a white truck driving away from the scene. Police stopped the driver before he got home and found the stolen goods in the back of the truck. A witness identified him soon afterward.


In addition to normal cameras, the planes can carry infrared sensors that permit analysts to track people, vehicles or wildlife at night — even through foliage and into some structures, such as tents.

Courts have put stricter limits on technology that can see things not visible to the naked eye, ruling that they can amount to unconstitutional searches when conducted without a warrant. But the lines remain fuzzy as courts struggle to apply old precedents — from a single overflight carrying an officer equipped with nothing stronger than a telephoto lens, for example — to the rapidly advancing technology.

“If you turn your country into a totalitarian surveillance state, there’s always some wrongdoing you can prevent,” said Jay Stanley, a privacy expert with the American Civil Liberties Union. “The balance struck in our Constitution tilts toward liberty, and I think we should keep that value.”

Police and private businesses have invested heavily in video surveillance since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Although academics debate whether these cameras create significantly lower crime rates, an overwhelming majority of Americans support them. A Washington Post poll in November found that only 14 percent of those surveyed wanted fewer cameras in public spaces.

But the latest camera systems raise new issues because of their ability to watch vast areas for long periods of time — something even military-grade aerial cameras have struggled to do well.

The military’s most advanced experimental research lab is developing a system that uses hundreds of cellphone cameras to watch 36-square-mile areas. McNutt offers his system — which uses 12 commercially available Canon cameras mounted in an array — as an effective alternative that’s cheap enough for local police departments to afford. He typically charges between $1,500 and $2,000 per hour for his services, including flight time, operation of the command center and the time that analysts spend assisting investigations.

Dayton police were enticed by McNutt’s offer to fly 200 hours over the city for a home-town discount price of $120,000. The city, with about 140,000 people, saw its police force dwindle from more than 400 officers to about 350 in recent years, and there is little hope of reinforcements.

“We’re not going to get those officers back,” Biehl, the police chief, said. “We have had to use technology as force multipliers.”

Still, the proposed contract, coming during Dayton’s campaign season and amid a wave of revelations about National Security Agency surveillance, sparked resistance. Biehl is looking for a chance to revive the matter. But the new mayor, Nan Whaley, has reservations, both because of the cost and the potential loss of privacy.

“Since 2001, we haven’t had really healthy conversations about personal liberty. It’s starting to bloom about a decade too late,” Whaley said. “I think the conversation needs to continue.”

To that end, the mayor has another idea: She’s encouraging the businesses that own Dayton’s tallest buildings to mount rooftop surveillance cameras capable of continuously monitoring the downtown and nearby neighborhoods. Whaley hopes the businesses would provide the video feeds to the police.

McNutt, it turns out, has cameras for those situations, too, capable of spotting individual people from seven miles away.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...f1556e-876f-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

Essentially this technology flies a plane just below cloud level, nearly undetectable and takes pictures of an entire 25 square mile area every second.

When a crime occurs they can use the camera to trace what happened before the crime and then follow the person who committed the crime after using the camera and accompanying tracking technology.

It has incredible implications for crime fighting and military(the podcast mentions case studies in Dayton, Fallujah and Juarez as examples of its effective use) but also huge potential ethical questions.

To me it is both fascinating in its potential to help solve crimes but also its potential for abuse. Figured it would raise some pretty interesting questions for GAF. As of the podcast it is in limbo in a number of cities around the country for implementation.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
The potential misuse of mass surveillance outweighs its positives.

That was my initial feeling as well, but seeing the results are rather shocking. The ability to drastically reduce murder, kidnappings, robberies, and the secondary potential benefits they mention such as natural disaster relief and rescue are incredibly compelling.

And from the looks of it this isn't really an if but a when. And the next question is how do you properly regulate it?
 
Yeah, the tech has some very interesting applications, as highlighted in that article. I think it will be mostly in 'bad hands' though.
 

Kinthalis

Banned
My gut reaction is: When can this be implemented in my city?!

Then I think of the issues with goverment officials, especially police, but also politicians. Little if any transparency, little if any acocuntability, little if any effort in improving after issues are found - instead a rush to destroy evidence, point fingers, and maintain the status quo.

How do we know it's not going to be used exclusively in blakc neighborhoods? How do we know member of party X won't have his golf buddy look up what member of party Y is doing every weekend when he leaves home...

Man, the potential for abuse is huge.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
My gut reaction is: When can this be implemented in my city?!

Then I think of the issues with goverment officials, especially police, but also politicians. Little if any transparency, little if any acocuntability, little if any effort in improving after issues are found - instead a rush to destroy evidence, point fingers, and maintain the status quo.

How do we know it's not going to be used exclusively in blakc neighborhoods? How do we know member of party X won't have his golf buddy look up what member of party Y is doing every weekend when he leaves home...

Man, the potential for abuse is huge.

I am in the same boat. On the one hand you can realistically see how this could do something like dramatically help find kidnapped children or solve robberies or murders. On the other hand if the checks and balances aren't in place you can just imagine the sort of corrupt actions that could go on.

Ultimately I am at a place where I am open to the technology but need to be convinced that the regulations would be in place to minimize abuse.
 

Dhx

Member
This makes me uneasy, but I'm not ready to completely dismiss the idea. If the footage is protected and requires a warrant to access very specific locations and time windows for specific reasons, perhaps the benefits could outweigh the potentials for abuse.

Examples of abuse would be using it to go on fishing expeditions or finding and prosecuting unrelated non-violent crimes while looking for something else.
 

Divvy

Canadians burned my passport
They updated this story, they are doing a pilot test over baltimore right now, and it has been used in catching several suspects already, and it was implemented with questionable approval from the city.

I don't know how I feel about this, it's an extremely grey area and I can understand arguments from both sides. But it definitely makes me feel really queezy.
 

Senoculum

Member
The potential misuse of mass surveillance outweighs its positives.

What makes you say that? Should we not encourage proper protocols and new-age thinking behind this tech? We should probably strive for it to be a public service instead of a private one.

Just this year there was a kidnapping and murder of a child in my country. What negative exactly outweighs the life-saving features of such technology?

The article makes great points, and it everything seems reasonable. There's a time-limit on footage before it gets deleted, and it can only be observed if there's a crime committed in the area. And its creators don't care about enhancing the detail, but its range. As told, you can't even tell if you're clothed so its only use is to map out the path of criminal scum. You know, like the stabbing by some university near me. Or the shooting of two women just north of me.

I'm in Toronto, Canada by the way. And while rare, these heinous crimes demand swift justice, and quite frankly, Sherlocking through crime scenes without the aid of tools is a fairy tale and can lead to mistrials and false accusations.

Robots don't lie.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
They updated this story, they are doing a pilot test over baltimore right now, and it has been used in catching several suspects already, and it was implemented with questionable approval from the city.

I don't know how I feel about this, it's an extremely grey area and I can understand arguments from both sides. But it definitely makes me feel really queezy.

Interesting. Need to check it out.

Been curious to see what major city would strike first and how it will go.
 

Guevara

Member
They updated this story, they are doing a pilot test over baltimore right now, and it has been used in catching several suspects already, and it was implemented with questionable approval from the city.

I don't know how I feel about this, it's an extremely grey area and I can understand arguments from both sides. But it definitely makes me feel really queezy.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1268913


Intellectually I want to be against mass surveillance, but honestly it seems beneficial in practice and a huge leap forward in crime solving and even prevention.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1268913


Intellectually I want to be against mass surveillance, but honestly it seems beneficial in practice and a huge leap forward in crime solving and even prevention.
I've only got to listen to a bit of the new story but they hit on something I think is going to be where the battle ground happens over the legality of this long term and that will be the 4th amendment.

If this is successful in Baltimore, and I kinda think it will be, then I think it is o my a matter of time before a defense lawyer claims this violates their clients 4th amendment rights and we see this in the Supreme Court.
 
Not specific to this technology, but we're already at a point in many fields where mass collection is easier and cheaper than targeted collection. Mass surveillance is pretty much an inevitability, and even if your own country isn't doing it, another will be doing it against yours giving them a leg up. The future is controlling access to the data, not eliminating the capability altogether, but I'll be building a cabin in the woods anyway.
 

theaface

Member
tumblr_o6d9wte4Pr1qfhb5no1_500.gif


Sure, why not?
 

Jonm1010

Banned
Not specific to this technology, but we're already at a point in many fields where mass collection is easier and cheaper than targeted collection. Mass surveillance is pretty much an inevitability, and even if your own country isn't doing it, another will be doing it against yours giving them a leg up. The future is controlling access to the data, not eliminating the capability altogether, but I'll be building a cabin in the woods anyway.

I agree. That's why I think a lot of the focus needs to be on regulation.

Which unfortunately seems like we are going to end up going down the path we do a lot of times and just sort of let shit happen until the consequences emerge and then only kinda, sorta deal with the fallout but only in an incomplete way.
 
It's like the west learned nothing from the surveillance states in Eastern Bloc.

When those in power have this technology, it will always end up being abused. It can't be trusted. And the thirst for this kind of information - the kind of information that can just maybe provide an edge in control or mitigate entropy - is unquenchable. We see this already with the NSA.
 
Thing is, if it becomes established in the USA, they will want to bring it other countries that is why this is a concern for everyone in the world.
 
It's like the west learned nothing from the surveillance states in Eastern Bloc.

When those in power have this technology, it will always end up being abused. It can't be trusted. And the thirst for this kind of information - the kind of information that can just maybe provide an edge in control or mitigate entropy - is unquenchable. We see this already with the NSA.

This is true of any form of power, but somehow the USA hasn't turned its nuclear arsenal against its own citizens. All power demands temperance in its use, the vigilance of the people, and a system of governance that facilitates those ideas... this is true of the power of information as well.
 
This is true of any form of power, but somehow the USA hasn't turned its nuclear arsenal against its own citizens. All power demands temperance in its use, the vigilance of its people, and a system of governance that facilitates those ideas... this is true of the power of information as well.

Well, neither did the Eastern Bloc or the Soviet Union, because that would be silly.

Local police departments and city governments have enough trouble with transparency and ethical issues. Imagine what they'd do with this. Accountability is nice, if you can get it.
 

DpadD

Banned
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

What's scary is the ammount of people in this country (forum) who will viciously defend and support the corrupt and powerful
 
I would have been absolutely against this until they brought up the example of kidnappings. Can you imagine how useful this would be in tracking an abducted child? Having children of my own now, I would absolutely appreciate this if something were to happen to one of my kids and this allowed the police to go back and track what happened.

I can understand the potential for abuse, but there is also a lot of potential to save lives. Did those of you that immediately condemned this listen to the radiolab story? They used this to completely take down a drug cartel in Mexico that was responsible for thousands of murders.
 
Well, neither did the Eastern Bloc or the Soviet Union, because that would be silly.

Local police departments and city governments have enough trouble with transparency and ethical issues. Imagine what they'd do with this. Accountability is nice, if you can get it.

It's a hyperbole for effect. The Soviet Union used more than just information against its people, is the point, while the USA did not despite also having similar (and greater) capability.
 

LCGeek

formerly sane
This is true of any form of power, but somehow the USA hasn't turned its nuclear arsenal against its own citizens. All power demands temperance in its use, the vigilance of the people, and a system of governance that facilitates those ideas... this is true of the power of information as well.

There would be almost no point in doing that. Everything else you said is spot on shame most people don't value information, the integrity of it or the freedom. I think it's utter BS we live in age in which governments, religious, institutions and corporations hold massive power over us cause of the information they keep under the guise of national security or at times copyright.
 

Senoculum

Member
It's like the west learned nothing from the surveillance states in Eastern Bloc.

When those in power have this technology, it will always end up being abused. It can't be trusted. And the thirst for this kind of information - the kind of information that can just maybe provide an edge in control or mitigate entropy - is unquenchable. We see this already with the NSA.

Okay... then what are your thoughts on Russia and China already spying on you? I bet you they already have your medical records, where you like to travel (have you turned off geotagging?), your job records (have you made your LinkedIn private yet?), and the extent of your family tree (have you made your Facebook private yet?).

These are the facts of life. At a local level, crimes are bound to happen and we don't need proof to accuse people of false doings, we need better proof. This technology and everything like it should be regulated to enhance the repertoire of our crime fighters. Or do you merely have an inherent distrust towards them?

At an international level, everything you do on the internet is already logged and tracked. We have gone through great strides to regulate advertisements so the user can get a better experience. Or do you have an inherent distrust against marketers?

At a global level, countries that hate you without knowing you have likely purchased your usernames and passwords. And they probably know how many degrees away you are from any person interest. We should counter this, but it's difficult and perhaps outright impossible.

The landscape has quite drastically changed from the Eastern Bloc. I'm not sure they even compare.
 
Okay... then what are your thoughts on Russia and China already spying on you? I bet you they already have your medical records, where you like to travel (have you turned off geotagging?), your job records (have you made your LinkedIn private yet?), and the extent of your family tree (have you made your Facebook private yet?).

Yes to all of those, ages ago.

At an international level, everything you do on the internet is already logged and tracked. We have gone through great strides to regulate advertisements so the user can get a better experience. Or do you have an inherent distrust against marketers?

Yes, don't you? You should. They don't have your best interests in mind.

At a global level, countries that hate you without knowing you have likely purchased your usernames and passwords. And they probably know how many degrees away you are from any person interest. We should counter this, but it's difficult and perhaps outright impossible.

The fact that our privacy is at greater risk than ever before doesn't mean that we should normalize the idea of it being irrelevant or nonexistent. I have no plans to do so.
 

robosllim

Member
It all sounds nice now, but the more widespread and more detailed it becomes, the easier it'll be for precincts to start using these things as red light cameras, or to bust people for things like loitering or for suspected drug deals. We see police abusing their power all the time for the sake of revenue, so I don't see why this would be different. Again, that's assuming this tech will eventually be everywhere.
 

Senoculum

Member
Yes to all of those, ages ago.



Yes, don't you? You should. They don't have your best interests in mind.



The fact that our privacy is at greater risk than ever before doesn't mean that we should normalize the idea of it being irrelevant or nonexistent. I have no plans to do so.

I baited you with the second one because I know a lot of Gaffers hates targeted ads. But let me tell you this: almost every popular website is strong as it is now due to advertising. Not because that's how they make money (not just that reason), but because they found a way to reach their audience. Minecrat, for example, wouldn't be as popular if Notch didn't exhibit his work, get his blog running, established a paid media campaign and used social media to get more eyes and users. The world of advertising has changed over the last 100 years. It's not inherently evil, but yes I agree, it can be untrustworthy (some of the time). We need to educate people on the matter so they don't get duped, and we should regulate (as we already do), and people who follow malpractices should get their just desserts. Every complex system will never be a perfect system.

Your last point is absolutely true. We shouldn't normalize the data. But we also shouldn't be afraid of the tools. Because while they have the capacity to do harm, I firmly believe that an educated country would use it for good.

Think of it this way. When we eventually become space faring creatures, the future will demand a lot of automation. A LOT. Computers will be the one docking our ships onto space stations and death stars. You cannot possibly trust humans to have the still hands of Matthew McConaughey every time. What does this mean? We will need pervasive tools that ensure safety. We will need to access the mainframe of your tiny spaceship. And yeah, we will need to make sure that you're who you say you are and not some Klingon.

To be part of a safe society, I think these surveillance tools are just the beginning. Which is why the public SHOULD demand processes. If we have something to fear, then it's up to us to make sure it doesn't fly in the face of its intentions.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
It all sounds nice now, but the more widespread and more detailed it becomes, the easier it'll be for precincts to start using these things as red light cameras, or to bust people for things like loitering or for suspected drug deals. We see police abusing their power all the time for the sake of revenue, so I don't see why this would be different. Again, that's assuming this tech will eventually be everywhere.
Yeah this is where I would imagine the low hanging fruit is for abuse.
 

samn

Member
That was my initial feeling as well, but seeing the results are rather shocking. The ability to drastically reduce murder, kidnappings, robberies, and the secondary potential benefits they mention such as natural disaster relief and rescue are incredibly compelling.

And from the looks of it this isn't really an if but a when. And the next question is how do you properly regulate it?

Up until the government's taken over by nazis and you can't do shit about it because they already installed cameras up your butt decades earlier
 

DpadD

Banned
After seeing what big brother has done to people if they disagree on the wY this country us ran, I'm good. If America needs to revolt one day, it'll be hard as shit with all this mass surveillance.

Mass surveillance + armed drones = next to invincible

They don't even need an army.
 

Senoculum

Member
Up until the government's taken over by nazis and you can't do shit about it because they already installed cameras up your butt decades earlier

Delicious fear mongering.

If you're so afraid of your government, then you should also be afraid of your neighbour who can hack into your Go Pro and watch you sleep.

Or the kid who tracks all the transmissions on your wi-fi network.

Or your gaming friend who you haven't met, but has socially engineered you into giving them your city address so they can data mine and use your IP for bitcoin operations.

The cyber world is bigger than you think, and seriously guys, if your police forces or government intelligence services isn't going to protect you, then who will?
 

DpadD

Banned
Delicious fear mongering.

If you're so afraid of your government, then you should also be afraid of your neighbour who can hack into your Go Pro and watch you sleep.

Or the kid who tracks all the transmissions on your wi-fi network.

Or your gaming friend who you haven't met, but has socially engineered you into giving them your city address so they can data mine and use your IP for bitcoin operations.

The cyber world is bigger than you think, and seriously guys, if your police forces or government intelligence services isn't going to protect you, then who will?

Those are terrible examples.

The kid next door can't detain you indefinitely for no reason at all.

People are shitty. They always will be. That's why giving a select few insourmountable power is dangerously naive and ignorant.
 

Senoculum

Member
Those are terrible examples.

The kid next door can't detain you indefinitely for no reason at all.

People are shitty. They always will be. That's why giving a select few insourmountable power is dangerously naive and ignorant.

They're all real examples.

What's naive is to think that we should opt out of such a program when the article alone points out how they tracked a single perp who targeted three locations (and three livelihoods). What's naive, to me, is wanting 100% privacy and security, when in truth having the two means a compromise on both.

Where's the line, in your opinion?

I recall the film Deja Vu where Denzel was kinda irked about the surveillance program. But hey, he eventually saved a ferry full of people (at the cost of himself). It's not going to be a system without flaws, but I believe in the greater good that comes with it.
 

Abounder

Banned
It's unethical but I'd rather have mass surveillance than not especially since cops are being assholes about wearing bodycams. At least then we can sue the government for video footage of how things really went down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom