- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/26423177
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/28167168
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/26423177
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/28167168
I did the math actually. And it seems like mass surveillance will only be justified if homicide rates are higher than 20% ( if 1 out of 5 people die in murder ). And only if surveillance actually stops all the crime ( which it doesn’t ) and only if there is nothing less problematic that could be used instead ( which there are plenty techniques, like normal regular investigation, where you ask people around on their own terms ). Basically the math says it isn’t justified by an apocalyptic margin.
Oh, Are you the same Blender Dumbass 2.0 ?
When mass surveillance works, you lose your rights, and when it doesn’t work as intended ( which as the government says to protect you from terrorists ), it gets things wrong and it can be too damaging, like when Google flagged a man who sent his child’s photos to a doctor, or when Facial recognition system gets the wrong person, or when a bank algorithm locks someone of their own account due to suspicious activity… etc
So we’re damned when it works and we’re damned when it doesn’t.
Edit: how can I do the math? Do you have any links…
I am the same blenderdumbass as in odysee.com/@blenderdumbass:f and as in blenderdumbass.org
well, you’re becoming famous :) … interesting articles you got there 😁
😀
I documented the math I did on this article: https://blenderdumbass.org/articles/Surveillance_Harms_1000_Times_More_Than_It_Helps.md