On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 23:48:00 +0000 (UTC)

>LMAO. Keep preaching surveillance technofascism Jim, you're doing a great job.

It's too bad you cannot figure out what other people can.  Yes, it is certainly correct to point out that a given technology can probably be employed both to help and hurt freedom, but that's only relevant if you only approach the question qualitatively, not quantitatively.  Yes, a camera can be used by a cop to photograph a perp, or by a citizen to photograph a cop.  But is that merely the only relevant issue?  I don't think so.  They don't cancel themselves out, if you factor in the number of incidents that might be photographed.  

Let's consider Milwaukee, and George Floyd.  About 9 minutes of video, probably taken by a smartphone costing a few hundred dollars, indirectly led to hundreds of thousands of people protesting, and even rioting, around the world.  Probably even millions, if you include the foreign events.  

 Now, I'd be the first to say that's not an entirely unalloyed benefit (if you include the rioting and looting), but the public clearly needed to see that incident.  And they did so, because of the invention of the smarphone.  (The public saw the Rodney King incident in 1992, but only because somebody who was on a balcony at just the right time happened to have a camcorder, with a charged battery, and findable-in-time casette of videotape.)

  But the public probably needs to see hundreds, or even thousands of similar incidents, but they don't, and that's mostly because it's mostly just random chance that a camera would be pointed in the right direction at the right time.   However, the technology mostly already exists to allow people to take a continuous, 360-degree panorama of a protest.  Will it see misconduct by rioters, even looters?  Sure.  But it will also show misconduct by cops, of a kind and extent that most protestors will want to see photographed.  

I suggest that most protestors will welcome this kind of technology.  

                  Jim Bell