The "investigation" consists of interrogating the data record, which is otherwise in oblivious storage. No one is under "constant" investigation, any more than one would be were a police department to look through the field reports of its patrol officers for a special purpose. This is 19th century stuff.
I have no problem with incarcerating criminals. But I would want to first have the means to detect them, track them down, and apprehend them, which is the real problem to solve.
But, really, what is the harm in being under "investigation"? It doesn't violate any of one's rights. I had to be investigated various times over the years to establish and maintain my security clearances. It was all behind the scenes and essentially invisible. No hassles. Of course, I wasn't committing espionage...
That would be your fallacious interpretation. A brainless camera recording a continuous scene is not an "investigation." No actual investigation is ever "continuous." Even investigators have budgets and dislike waste of time.
I mean, I'm speaking from the life experience of being investigated. Does that count?
But also a nice day to you. Never enough of them...
It can't be a 'fallacious interpretation'. I was responding to your statement 'But, really, what is the harm in being under "investigation"?'
And I'm not quite sure we're 'on the same wavelength'. I understand that until queried, the data is simply 'stored'. But once queried, that data is filtered and the output is the functional equivalent of having been constantly monitored (or investigated, or stalked) for months.
Or do you see a difference in the output of the query?
This is degenerating into pettifogging. No one would be under "constant" investigation (that is the fallacy). There is no telling if anyone would be under investigation. You still haven't answered the question of harm. There certainly would be no violation of civil rights (4th Amendment).
You don't seem to have any concern for the reason you might be under investigation. Even if there is no outcome. And you still don't grapple with the fact that officials do not launch investigations at the drop of a hat; they have better things to do than chase feathers or harass ordinary people (e.g., like find burglars).
Look, I'm the one who has been investigated by the federal government, rather deeply, and I'm the one who might have been restored from serious burglary if this had helped to catch the culprit, so I think I have the advantage of experience on both ends. I don't think you have.
Meanwhile, private surveillance systems are increasingly popular and municipal cameras are proliferating. People are not afraid of it. And those who want to go to war with it are likely to be caught and thrown in jail. I won't be sympathetic. So, I will bid you well.
The "investigation" consists of interrogating the data record, which is otherwise in oblivious storage. No one is under "constant" investigation, any more than one would be were a police department to look through the field reports of its patrol officers for a special purpose. This is 19th century stuff.
I have no problem with incarcerating criminals. But I would want to first have the means to detect them, track them down, and apprehend them, which is the real problem to solve.
But, really, what is the harm in being under "investigation"? It doesn't violate any of one's rights. I had to be investigated various times over the years to establish and maintain my security clearances. It was all behind the scenes and essentially invisible. No hassles. Of course, I wasn't committing espionage...
Ok, this was a useful exchange.
You have no problem with every single citizen being under constant investigation.
I do have a problem with that.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Have a nice day.
That would be your fallacious interpretation. A brainless camera recording a continuous scene is not an "investigation." No actual investigation is ever "continuous." Even investigators have budgets and dislike waste of time.
I mean, I'm speaking from the life experience of being investigated. Does that count?
But also a nice day to you. Never enough of them...
It can't be a 'fallacious interpretation'. I was responding to your statement 'But, really, what is the harm in being under "investigation"?'
And I'm not quite sure we're 'on the same wavelength'. I understand that until queried, the data is simply 'stored'. But once queried, that data is filtered and the output is the functional equivalent of having been constantly monitored (or investigated, or stalked) for months.
Or do you see a difference in the output of the query?
This is degenerating into pettifogging. No one would be under "constant" investigation (that is the fallacy). There is no telling if anyone would be under investigation. You still haven't answered the question of harm. There certainly would be no violation of civil rights (4th Amendment).
You don't seem to have any concern for the reason you might be under investigation. Even if there is no outcome. And you still don't grapple with the fact that officials do not launch investigations at the drop of a hat; they have better things to do than chase feathers or harass ordinary people (e.g., like find burglars).
Look, I'm the one who has been investigated by the federal government, rather deeply, and I'm the one who might have been restored from serious burglary if this had helped to catch the culprit, so I think I have the advantage of experience on both ends. I don't think you have.
Meanwhile, private surveillance systems are increasingly popular and municipal cameras are proliferating. People are not afraid of it. And those who want to go to war with it are likely to be caught and thrown in jail. I won't be sympathetic. So, I will bid you well.