Would you be okay if the US had mass surveillance if it reduced crime to almost zero?

44 comments

1. Nope.

2. Absolutely fucking not.

3. No

4. Of course not! China’s one of the harshest dictatorships on the planet for all those unlucky enough to live in Xinjiang or Tibet, or be born into Uyghur or Tibetan ethnicity, or be a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist who puts their faith above the state, or be a member of Falun Gong, or oppose the state in any way. Those who would trade essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither.

5. No. Just because you might be comfortable with the current administration having it, eventually an administration will come along that you don’t like having that kind of power.

6. I am the criminal….

   So no. Even if I wasn’t, also no.

7. No.

   Surveillance does not stop crime, it just allows you to see it better. It also makes it easier for the government to say anything they dislike is a crime.

8. No.

   Also we have mass surveillance and they haven’t reduced crime so….

   Double no.

9. Hell no.

10. No fucking way.

11. No, because it wouldn’t work, and it would allow those with access to the surveillance to use it for nefarious purposes

12. Oh for crying out loud! NO!

13. Absolutely fucking not. Big brother government can stay the fuck out of my business.

    Also, the query is predicated that all laws are ethical and just. That’s certainly not the case.

14. China has a massive amount of violence and crime.

    Mass surveillance itself is also a human rights violation.

15. No

16. No, absolutely not.

    To the extent that many people would sabotage and defy the surveillance system on general principle.

    We’re willing to accept a certain level of crime in society if it preserves our rights and liberties.

17. No

18. No, I’m not really affected by crime, but I’d be affected by mass surveillance.

19. no. there’s too many laws.

20. Fuck no. *Fuck* no. Our 4th amendment never recovered from 9/11 and we are not culturally homogenous. Getting crime to be nonexistent here is a pipe dream and selling out whatever privacy or protections we still do have is a fool’s errand.

    Pass. Giant goddamned pass.

21. Fuck no and tear down the damn speed cameras while you’re at it.

22. No, because any power granted to the government will inevitably be misused.

23. I don’t even believe in speed cameras

24. “Those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither ” – Benjamin Franklin

    “Give me liberty or give me death” – Patrick Henry

25. Of course not, are you insane?

26. No, because no matter how scary criminals and random acts of crime may be, they cannot hold a candle to what kind of horrors a government with omnipresence can and will do. Even if the government is benevolent when it introduces such measures there is no guarantee that it would loose its benevolence a decade down the line.

27. >your privacy for safety

    holy shit fuck no.

28. Would I be ok with mass surveillance?Absolutely not. It’s unconstitutional and a human rights violation.

    And having spent time in the USSR, it’s a hard no from me.

29. No. I’m still mad about the patriot act.

30. No, fuck anyone who says why worry if you have nothing to hide.

31. Sounds like a Fourth Amendment violation.

    So, no. Either police within the lines or don’t police at all. Which was, like, on display in Baltimore a few years ago.

32. No? Cuz everything’s a crime in at least one of the 50 states then you have the feds with here own set of rules ….. nope fuck that

33. Might as well sign up for bi-weekly colonoscopies too since it ensures reduced risk

34. No, I value my privacy

35. No, NSA plant, no.

36. Well, OP, you’ve hit on the biggest cultural difference between Americans and the rest of the world. We (not all, but most) would rather accept an increase in crime and disorder in order to maintain our privacy and independence. It’s one of the things I prefer about the US.

    Just keep in mind that most of our objections are not about how surveillance systems are used in other countries but about how they *could* be used.

37. “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Benjamin Franklin.

38. No. There are other ways to combat crime.

39. Never. That sort of power will always end up being abused. Usually to maintain the power of the powerful.

40. *2A intensifies*

    ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT

41. No way. That could all very easily be misused.

42. No. Let’s try a more insane idea, you commit a crime you should be punished.

    The goal of Jail is to punish, your rehabilitation is only a secondary objective.

    Many more people who commit crimes should get to go to prison.

43. Why don’t you ask if we’d be willing to go full Minority Report if we could?

44. I love how everyone is saying, “hell no!” but has no problem with the government working hand-in-glove with social media, search engines, and video platforms to censor and discredit those whom they don’t like for going against the narrative and questioning the government.

    All that is fine because they’re only going after people questioning the efficacy of masks, the legal and moral implications of lockdowns and forced vaccinations, and possible criminal connections between the cognitively compromised President, his degenerate son, and the corrupt oligarchy America has sent billions of unaccounted dollars.

    Twisting Big Tech’s arm to censor those people is perfectly fine in most Redditor’s minds because it targets their political enemies, but the government putting up cameras and biometrics- that’s a bridge too far.

    Hypocrites. All of them.