Land of freedom they say.
I heartily recommend it to anyone who is irrationally opposed to state surveillance, (or, by extension if you simply resent the idea of an omniscient God) just because it is an achingly beautiful and true film that proposes a more reasonable viewpoint.
How is this a reasonable compromise?
I don't want surveillance cameras at all, but a neutral position might sound something like "sure, put up cameras everywhere, and once you get a warrant or probable cause (sigh), you can punch in the plate number and police will get notified when they see that car."
Now, obviously it's a surveillance state that's ripe for abuse and relies on trust in government and process, but at _least_ it's predicated on some level of suspicion.
"Record and catalog every piece of movement all these cameras see, store it for a long time, hand it over to whatever person with access to the system feels like searching it, send huge amounts of data secretly in response to National Security Letters, and while we're at it, just |tee the whole feed to the CIA. Maybe tracking everyone all the time will come in handy some day!" just seems _batshit insane_. It's not even in the REALM of possibly-constitutional from where I sit.
And yet the judge in the Norfolk, VA case said "well, this technology COULD represent a 4th amendment violation in the future, but 200 cameras in our town isn't so bad". What???
I have no idea what this means. It seems to me the extreme "yes, please surveil me" position cedes the technology to the authoritarians.
Is this sarcasm? A good friend is a criminal defense barrister and his opinion does not match yours on the justice perspective. Meanwhile two good friends were hospitalized in two separate incidents in London. Just random violence. "Nothing we can do" said coppers. Daily you tube videos of pickpockets targeting tourists. etc.
Unless you are very rich, London's surveillance state isn't helping you.
Bonus: the Mayor of London and the Mayor of the City of London are different people, because the City of London is a semi-independent state with different police force. IIRC the Tower of London, Tower Bridge and St Pauls are within the "square mile".
Like, did you know that more money is stolen via wage theft, than all of shoplifting and burglary combined?
You think that's unrelated? The solution to gun violence is not surveillance state - because the state benefits from gun violence. The solution to gun violence is ending poverty and inequality.
Literally never heard of it, and honestly I'm not sure I care to if your response to my comment is thinking I'm "irrationally opposed to state surveillance".
Wait, lol do you thing an omniscient god and the state police are the same thing?