The government do a lot to protect you from yourself. You just don’t realise the extent of it.
Highways have traffic cameras all over the place for traffic control and spotting accidents, but it’s never bothered you before because you’ve never noticed.
Stuff being recorded isn’t the problem you having this idea that anyone is even remotely interested in using it to surveil you is the problem. You’re not interesting, no one’s watching you, no one wants to watch you, and no one is implementing clever conspiracies in order to get cameras in place in order to watch you more.
Regardless of the presented reason, it is right that people question and are cautious about increased surveillance. Some people are willing to capitulate to more and more monitoring very easily. Privacy is important.
Yes but you’re essentially complaining about the equivalent of speed cameras and claiming that they’re going to be used for monitoring you. Which would only happen if you were driving past them very loudly so just don’t do that.
If you get caught speeding you can hardly use the arguement of well the government shouldn’t be monitoring me.
You’re engaging in the classic slippery slope fallacy. Anything you don’t like, all you have to do is claim that it’s a step on the way to tyranny and suddenly it’s acceptable to oppose it. The same arguement was used to oppose the introduction of seat belts.
The government do a lot to protect you from yourself. You just don’t realise the extent of it.
Highways have traffic cameras all over the place for traffic control and spotting accidents, but it’s never bothered you before because you’ve never noticed.
Stuff being recorded isn’t the problem you having this idea that anyone is even remotely interested in using it to surveil you is the problem. You’re not interesting, no one’s watching you, no one wants to watch you, and no one is implementing clever conspiracies in order to get cameras in place in order to watch you more.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
-Goebbels
That glorified speed cameras we’re not talking about state surveillance here.
Anyway if you wanted to object to that you should have objected about 30 years ago and CCTV camera started to get put in everywhere
Just because it’s already very bad, doesn’t mean that you should make it just a little worse.
Ah the classic naïveté of the “nothing to hide” argument.
Regardless of the presented reason, it is right that people question and are cautious about increased surveillance. Some people are willing to capitulate to more and more monitoring very easily. Privacy is important.
Yes but you’re essentially complaining about the equivalent of speed cameras and claiming that they’re going to be used for monitoring you. Which would only happen if you were driving past them very loudly so just don’t do that.
If you get caught speeding you can hardly use the arguement of well the government shouldn’t be monitoring me.
You’re engaging in the classic slippery slope fallacy. Anything you don’t like, all you have to do is claim that it’s a step on the way to tyranny and suddenly it’s acceptable to oppose it. The same arguement was used to oppose the introduction of seat belts.