I am suspicious of
any system which monitors the general public, as they can all be abused. Many people say "If you're doing nothing wrong, then why does it matter?" to which I counter "Then why do they need to monitor me when I'm doing no wrong?" Quite simply they don't, nor should they be allowed to. They have no need to know anything about me or what I do until I do something wrong
Wikileaks released an article a few years ago how the CIA hacked Samsung T.V.s and turned them into listening devices:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomas...-samsung-smart-tv-hack-security/#14ca37d84bcd
The same thing was down to enable a cell phone to record audio.
People who say I am doing no wrong fail to grasp they may one day run afoul of someone who uses these technologies to their advantage. What would stop a hacker or someone with a vendetta from gathering dirt. Everyone has some skeleton in their closet.
Americans as a whole are too stupid and too lazy to be outraged at the loss of liberties.
Look at the "Un"Patriot Act. Less than 1/3rd even bother to get out and vote. So their voices aren't heard and their discontent known. Once liberties are lost, the chances of regaining them are next to none. And within short time, once a power grab has been made, those in charge will test to waters to see how much further they can get away with.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Look at Donald Trump.
Governments who monitor the public's actions expose their distrust of their citizenry, a mindset which indicates that they themselves are probably not trustworthy and they know it; otherwise that thought would not have likely entered their minds. If their monitoring is as benevolent and benign as they'd have you believe, then why don't they allow everyone access to their systems so that we can monitor them with it? Ah, now the truth emerges:
They don't want you watching them because they are doing wrong and they don't want you to catch them doing it!
I am of the mindset that
ALL POLICE DEPARTMENTS should be mandated to have body cameras activated at ALL TIMES. Attempts to disable the camera is grounds for immediate dismissal. If a complaint is lodged against an officer that turned off his/her camera, then criminal charges are also filed. People want accountability and this is the only way you'll get it.
I disagree about the trust issue. I believe it's more about control. A government that spies on its citizenry believes or attempts to convey belief that such methods are for the good of the people. False security. When in fact, the government cannot read minds, and lone wolves rarely raise flags before a crime is committed.
Look at mass shooters, school shooters, etc. No amount of surveillance could prevent these massacres.
Better background checks mental health flags are far better preventatives than spying on everyone as a whole. No amount of benevolence will usurp common sense.
Here in the US we have a distrust of our Government and it's always been that way for good reason. From the very start every Government we've had has not been benign or benevolent to us, but has tried to curtail our freedoms, over-regulate, and overtax us
Every government everywhere wants to control it's citizenry, and when allowed to exert too much control has always proven to be detrimental to it's citizenry. Few people in the US realize how deeply we're being monitored today as most of that is done covertly, and not overtly as is being done elsewhere. The ways they use to do this are through things touted as being beneficial to us or through means which appear to be benign. It's impossible to escape this completely but there are ways to minimize it, and that is the approach I choose.
A method of tracking Covid-19 cases would be beneficial to both governments and citizens, allowing a better government response to the pandemic and allowing individuals to better avoid contact with those who have the disease. But I am still against this because neither governments or private entities have proven to be trustworthy with information they gather about us- it will not be deleted after this is over or used only for this purpose. It will be used for marketing, sold to someone else, or covertly collected for some later use which may or not be apparent to us today. It is a matter of trust, and I do not trust them because they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, so until that changes (which history says it won't) I cannot support such an effort.
Phil
I disagree. Contact tracing is imperative in a health crisis. Years ago, when HIV/AIDS was a novel condition, there was obviously no testing and it hit the gay community very hard. Along with infecting those receiving blood transfusions. Years down the road, the government advocated that those who had a blood transfusion before 1985 be tested for Aids. Not because the government cared about "punishing people", but to stop an outbreak or people from unknowingly infecting others. Similar to Covid 19.
To build upon that point, there have been people who are KNOWINGLY infecting others with Covid-19, even after being told they were sick. A law was made years ago that punished people who had HIV/AIDS and failed to tell their partners. Criminalizing such at, especially if someone got sick. While I am for as little data as possible being collected by the government,
issues of health and public welfare are inherent jobs of the government.
Just as the Police cannot allow rioting and looting to take place, the same can be said for people spreading illness than in turn can bring our country to its knees. Look at Covid. Trump's mishandling crippled the economy for 3 months and the U.S. has over 1/4th of its population unemployed.
www.govtech.com
