If you work out the numbers, it becomes an impossible enterprise. Let us say we have 350 million people...to be surveilled, as to what we are doing, and making inferences as to what it may mean. Would that mean we each have a surveillance officer watching over us? That means a total population of 700 million people. But those surveillance officers would also need to be surveilled, so we need to add another 350 million, to a total of 1.05 billion people. And, of course, those surveillance officers need to be surveilled... This becomes a surveillance dilemma similar to Zeno's Paradox. Pick your ratio. I picked 1:1 to make the problem obvious. But there is still a problem at 10:1---if that is even possible, considering division of attention and the inability of a surveillance officer to stand 24 hours on watch every day. And don't imagine that A.I. is going to help much, as an algorithm can never have any "understanding." Remember the inherent tendency for A.I. to "hallucinate"? Over 350 million people? Many of whom bear similarity to one another? The ultimate result would be a nation consisting mainly of surveillance officers, eating resources, while the minority must bear the burden of all economic production.
So, it's not going to happen. Maybe some constellation of A.I.s will maintain an observational database (or databases) into which the government, by its delegated legal authority, can make inquiries. (I once dreamed that up as a possible science fiction setting, back in the 1980s.) But that will still require suspicion and cause. If it becomes a scourge of crime, fine by me. I have no desire for society to tolerate or facilitate muggings, robberies, and rapes in back alleys, or serious traffic infractions on the street. I think it would be excellent as a first alarm for any fire or violent damage, to address the safety and rescue problem at the earliest moment.
If I have no complaint against a common person standing on a street-corner, observing my public actions, I have no complaint if that person is a policeman or a robot. It makes no difference. The only difference is whether the government infringes on my rights. And resistance to that must happen out in the open, as visible as possible, for which the internet could be a (mixed) blessing.
I'm not keen on blanking license plates. The object is what? To get away with running red lights, exceeding the speed limits, or driving recklessly? Nor am I comfortable with the current fashion of applying films to automobile windows to prevent anyone from seeing into the vehicle. This creates a tremendous hazard and risk for police who may need to stop a vehicle, as the occupants could be prepared for a deadly response to such a stop. (I spent a lot of time watching "Cops". Plenty of dicey occasions when policemen needed to stop a car, and not know what was going to result.)
I am not sympathetic to those who complain about this. When I was in my early teens, I sometimes had to go to junior high school by bus, and waited at a bus stop in my neighborhood. One morning, there was a larger, older boy walking up the far side of the street, and I was watching him idly. He noticed that, and shouted at me "Stop watching me." Since I didn't take well to being ordered around, I kept watching. So, he came over to loom and repeat his order. I just stared at him. He punched me hard in the shoulder. I still stared at him. He went off, and I stared at him until he had gone out of sight. So, the guy who was nervous about being stared at was a violent asshole. An interesting life lesson.
If you work out the numbers, it becomes an impossible enterprise. Let us say we have 350 million people...to be surveilled, as to what we are doing, and making inferences as to what it may mean. Would that mean we each have a surveillance officer watching over us? That means a total population of 700 million people. But those surveillance officers would also need to be surveilled, so we need to add another 350 million, to a total of 1.05 billion people. And, of course, those surveillance officers need to be surveilled... This becomes a surveillance dilemma similar to Zeno's Paradox. Pick your ratio. I picked 1:1 to make the problem obvious. But there is still a problem at 10:1---if that is even possible, considering division of attention and the inability of a surveillance officer to stand 24 hours on watch every day. And don't imagine that A.I. is going to help much, as an algorithm can never have any "understanding." Remember the inherent tendency for A.I. to "hallucinate"? Over 350 million people? Many of whom bear similarity to one another? The ultimate result would be a nation consisting mainly of surveillance officers, eating resources, while the minority must bear the burden of all economic production.
So, it's not going to happen. Maybe some constellation of A.I.s will maintain an observational database (or databases) into which the government, by its delegated legal authority, can make inquiries. (I once dreamed that up as a possible science fiction setting, back in the 1980s.) But that will still require suspicion and cause. If it becomes a scourge of crime, fine by me. I have no desire for society to tolerate or facilitate muggings, robberies, and rapes in back alleys, or serious traffic infractions on the street. I think it would be excellent as a first alarm for any fire or violent damage, to address the safety and rescue problem at the earliest moment.
If I have no complaint against a common person standing on a street-corner, observing my public actions, I have no complaint if that person is a policeman or a robot. It makes no difference. The only difference is whether the government infringes on my rights. And resistance to that must happen out in the open, as visible as possible, for which the internet could be a (mixed) blessing.
I'm not keen on blanking license plates. The object is what? To get away with running red lights, exceeding the speed limits, or driving recklessly? Nor am I comfortable with the current fashion of applying films to automobile windows to prevent anyone from seeing into the vehicle. This creates a tremendous hazard and risk for police who may need to stop a vehicle, as the occupants could be prepared for a deadly response to such a stop. (I spent a lot of time watching "Cops". Plenty of dicey occasions when policemen needed to stop a car, and not know what was going to result.)
I am not sympathetic to those who complain about this. When I was in my early teens, I sometimes had to go to junior high school by bus, and waited at a bus stop in my neighborhood. One morning, there was a larger, older boy walking up the far side of the street, and I was watching him idly. He noticed that, and shouted at me "Stop watching me." Since I didn't take well to being ordered around, I kept watching. So, he came over to loom and repeat his order. I just stared at him. He punched me hard in the shoulder. I still stared at him. He went off, and I stared at him until he had gone out of sight. So, the guy who was nervous about being stared at was a violent asshole. An interesting life lesson.