Why nobody worries? Because this is an elite person problem.
At the end of the day, all those surveillance still has to be consumed by a person and only around 10,000 people in this world (celebs, hot women, politicians and wealthy) will be surveilled.
For most of HN crowd (upper middle-class, suburban family) who have zero problems in their life must create imaginary problems of privacy / surveillance like this. But reality is, even if they put all their private data on a website, heresallmyprivatedata.com, nobody cares. It'll have 0 external views.
So, for HN crowd (the ones who live in a democratic society) it's just an outlet so that they too can say they are victimized. Rest of the Western world doesn't care (and rightly so)
Certainly, some of the more exotic and flashy things you can do with surveillance are an elite person problem.
But the two main limits to police power are that it takes time and resources to establish that a crime occurred, and it takes time and resources to determine who committed a crime. A distant third is the officer/DA's personal discretion as to whether or not to purse enforcement of said person. You still get a HUGE amount of systemic abuse because of that discretion. Imagine how bad things would get if our already over-militarized police could look at anyone and know immediately what petty crimes that person has committed, perhaps without thinking. Did a bug fly in your mouth yesterday, and you spit it out on the sidewalk in view of a camera? Better be extra obsequious when Officer No-Neck with "You're fucked" written on his service weapon pulls up to the gas station you're pumping at. If you don't show whatever deference he deems adequate, he's got a list of petty crimes he can issue a citation for, entirely at his discretion. But you'd better do it, once he decides to pursue that citation, you're at the mercy of the state's monopoly on violence, and it'll take you surviving to your day in court to decide if needs qualified immunity for the actions he took whilst issuing that citation.
>Did a bug fly in your mouth yesterday, and you spit it out on the sidewalk in view of a camera? Better be extra obsequious when Officer No-Neck with "You're fucked" written on his service weapon pulls up to the gas station you're pumping at. If you don't show whatever deference he deems adequate, he's got a list of petty crimes he can issue a citation for, entirely at his discretion.
>> HN crowd (upper middle-class, suburban family) who have zero problems in their life must create imaginary problems of privacy / surveillance like this
I've been pulled over several times for being cutoff ("You didn't signal for a full 5 seconds when you changed lanes" "I was taking evasive action to not hit the guy...!") while driving a vehicle with out-of-state plates. I am 2 degrees of separation away from at least 2 people killed by police for having medical conditions that interfered with immediate compliance.
Per the US department of justice[0], in 2018, about 2% of all police interactions involve threats of or actual violence. About half of the time, the member of the public who experienced the (threats of) violence said that it was excessive, but it would take a fairer, more rational person than me to get justifiably tazed, then say "yeah, I had that coming". I wasn't able to find statistics on how justified that violence is.
The punchline is that every time you have a police interaction, its betting odds that it ends in violence for you. Based on the 2018 data, 0.5% of the overall adult population experienced (threats of) violence from police. That's when police are able to gin up probable cause. The courts have a complicated opinion about whether or not algorithmically derived probable cause is in fact probable cause [1,2]. Anything that increases public/police interactions is going to increase police-on-public violence if the police don't also experience significant non-violent de-escalation training.
I think one of the key things that needs to be determined before we cry havoc and let slip the dogs of surveillance is to come to a real conclusion about what level of crime allows the police officer to initiate contact with only a positive ID from e.g. a bodycam. I'd argue that, if nothing else, non-violent misdemeanors that carry no mandatory jail time are not cause to initiate contact.
At the end of the day, all those surveillance still has to be consumed by a person and only around 10,000 people in this world (celebs, hot women, politicians and wealthy) will be surveilled.
For most of HN crowd (upper middle-class, suburban family) who have zero problems in their life must create imaginary problems of privacy / surveillance like this. But reality is, even if they put all their private data on a website, heresallmyprivatedata.com, nobody cares. It'll have 0 external views.
So, for HN crowd (the ones who live in a democratic society) it's just an outlet so that they too can say they are victimized. Rest of the Western world doesn't care (and rightly so)