Related, what if we protected the privacy of everyone by default (which is an absolute joke in bourgeois society at the moment), but reserved technological surveillance as a measure applied to violent offenders? I think it would enable us to be less punitive, rather than being moreso - offenders could be released sooner and with more confidence of collective wellbeing, if they could be “sentenced” to constant surveillance with your Militia or whatever ready to intervene in moments possibly before they even offend (eg., when a situation starts becoming very heated)

Dystopian maybe, but less so than caging and psychologically torturing a human, just less familiar…

  • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    4·
    3 days ago

    Honestly, surveillance is needed until a society built on trust can be developed. Think of China, in 1 or 2 generations they probably can do away with the surveillance infrastructure since they have already developed a society built on trust.

  • ghost_of_faso3@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    5·
    3 days ago

    If it was global disarm the whole thing and just keep nuclear research as an energy thing, no one should have that much destructive power.

    We should follow the Sankara line, once the revolution is complete, non-violence. Otherwise why did we fight? To put on the boot?

  • IHave69XiBucks@lemmygrad.ml
    2·
    3 days ago

    Maybe im stupid… idk what DoTP stands for. I suck at acronyms. Anyway as for surveillance in general. Personally i like the idea of zones. Like different geographical regions have different levels of surveillance and you get to pick which one you live in. Since its really a personal preference, and both approaches have ups and downs. Just like how some people prefer city life and some prefer rural life.

    You can choose somewhere with cameras everywhere if you care more about safety, or some local areas could ban cameras in public entirely. Public policy isnt a one size fits all thing typically.