- Random ordinary citizen? Leave me alone. - Someone in a law enforcement agency? Jail time if their mandatory badge came stop functionioning, with all the footage being public data. A powerful politician? Billionaire CEO? Board members of a massive international corporation? 24/7 livestreamed public surveillance.
After all, the worst the average person can do is shoot some people, but those who hold power can ruin the lives of millions with a word, and often do. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, and if they don't like it, they can simply step away from power.
I honestly believe this, but even if you don't, it's worth considering why it's always a discussion of the powerful privately and secretly monitoring the weakest in society, rather then the other way around. Almost like its purely a reinforcement of the existing hierarchy.
What's he building in there...?
The practicalities and cost of putting cameras in every room then monitoring them are clearly absurd, so it undermines your case.
As for the absurdity of placing monitors in every room, I'm surprised someone on HN would raise that objection. IoT devices are dirt cheap, and whats more, many people voluntarily install them. The government could easily choose to subsidize Nest/Amazon/Google devices - for the low low price of free access for your protection. Maybe you would get insurance premium discounts. Many would jump on that deal.
Then you use a straw-man yourself, implying that this system would require constant human monitoring to be effective. It wouldn't. The data would be used in the same way security camera footage is used now, to be used as evidence after-the-fact, and so, as a deterrent.
So, rather than reflexively attack me, how about engaging with the thought behind it?
Yes, it would be a massive privacy violation but given the kind of power they wield the checks in place must be equally massive. Trying to bypass these measures in any way could even be treated as a national security threat.
There is an alternative approach to mitigating this problem which is easier, cheaper and more effective. We need to reduce the concentration of political power by making politicians and beaurocrats less powerful. Since the benefits of political power tend to amplify over time, we should limit all such positions of power to single terms. Once elected to any state-wide or national public office, you can never be elected to another. One and done. If there are no 30-year career politicians, the value of influencing them is greatly diminished.
The next step is to reduce the amount of power centralized within government. Much as bank robbers target banks "because that's where the money is", crony capitalists and lobbyists seeking regulatory capture target politicians because we've allowed too much power to pool in one place.