About what?

Ethics can't be framed to support your argument, either. Not objectively, anyway. You seem to be assuming something about my thought process, but it's just not working out for you.

Replacing thousands of cheap surveillance devices with helicopters would be extremely expensive. It is you who doesn't know what you're talking about.

And if we're talking about this specific example, officers who patrol around also tend to not be able to fly. They can use helicopters, but that's even more costly.

Actually, no, it doesn't. Having thousands of cheap cameras, which can record footage (Big difference here!) and send that footage to a central authority, and never have to sleep, is absolutely different, and qualifies as mass surveillance. Having that many officers for the sole purpose of surveillance is also cost prohibitive, so they'd never be able to replace even cheap surveillance devices.

Which makes it sound as if you know what I think.

And what's with the massive influx of AC idiots defending the government's nonsense?

What part of "mass surveillance" do you people not understand? A few dashcams do not cover the same ground as (for example) cameras installed everywhere in public places. Helicopters are prohibitively expensive, but if they became cheap and automated, such surveillance would become a problem.

Considering you're telling me how I think, I would think you would care how I actually think. Or are you more concerned about what goes on in your own delusions?

Just because the government doesn't acknowledge certain rights, that doesn't mean that people don't believe they should have them, and that it's wrong when the government violates these not-yet-implemented rights. But yeah, I do believe in privacy from mass government surveillance of public places.

Also, I said "such as," meaning it was an *example*. Using the above person's logic, contractors would be able to do *anything* the government couldn't do, which would be insane. That was the point, and it wasn't intended to just apply to this specific scenario.

You don't know how I think.

Who hires the contractors? The government. The government's ability to hire contractors for certain purposes can be restricted.

And when the government hires contractors to do something (such as to violate people's rights), the contractors become a de facto part of the government. Otherwise, they'd just be able to hire contractors to do *anything* they're not allowed to do, constitutionally or otherwise.

You don't seem to understand ethics very well.

The government is definitely spying on you when it has ubiquitous surveillance devices recording as much as possible, even when it happens in public.

When something is done past a certain degree that it becomes harmful (in my eyes), I consider it wrong. Very simple.

Because they have virtually limitless resources and ability to harass, it is a problem. History, with its numerous examples of government abuses, further shows that it is a problem.

So, I should stop thinking about anything and mindlessly declare that the situations are the exact same while disregarding the implementation and efficiency? That sounds ludicrous.

"meaningless" is a meaningless term.

You're not going to convince me that the government having surveillance devices installed everywhere in public places, or making use of surveillance drones everywhere, are good things. It just isn't going to happen.

I don't know of any laws, but I don't care. I'm saying I think it *should* be illegal.

I do. Especially when it's the government doing it. We The People can easily restrict their activities if we choose to do so. The fact that "anybody" can do it doesn't mean we should let the government, with its virtually limitless resources and authority, do so.

I think that's all morally wrong. The fact that we allow it means we're not living up to the whole "land of the free and the home of the brave" thing.

On the government's use of surveillance technology in public places.

Simply incorrect. Governments have far more resources with which to make use of surveillance devices, so prohibiting them from doing so would help. Furthermore, all their footage goes to one central authority (the government), while they would have to hunt down other people's footage.

As for hiring people, doing so in such ways could also be made illegal. After all, something doesn't become okay just because you hire people to do it.

How would I know how you personally choose to store your footage? I'm not talking about *you*, specifically. The surveillance will mainly be to track you and watch for mistakes, which they can then use to harass you. Even if you have footage on your side, you won't necessarily have public opinion or laws on your side.

That's the land of the free and the home of the brave for you. So brave. So free.

You assume that it will be easy to detect who they are, or that your footage will not be vanished. Furthermore, public opinion and laws will not always be on your side. Privacy (in this case, from mass government surveillance) is still very useful, and for me, desirable.

Privacy from *mass government surveillance of public places* is not a contradiction. Guess how we can prevent it, while still having public places? Simply put, we can simply restrict the government's usage of surveillance devices in public places. If it's such a huge contradiction, then that would not be possible, but since the government doesn't have to be able to use such surveillance devices everywhere, it obviously is possible.

For conducting mass surveillance of public places, which is absolutely 100% different from someone merely seeing you, and especially so when something as powerful as the government does it. The problem is a combination of them recording footage and doing so for huge areas. I don't think I even need to explain how this is different from using your eyes to look around.

If you honestly don't see a problem, you need to think a bit harder.