Exactly as these new more efficient systems should be used.
> … uses AI to track vehicles and people
Why would wasting a team of people’s time manually reviewing hours of footage be preferable to a computer doing it? If an Amber Alert goes out, why would we not want to use all technology possible to locate the suspect vehicle? The argument seems to have switched to cameras are fine, just not if they are efficient.
You can set up all kinds of horror scenarios with CCTV cameras, AirTags, cell phones, gps trackers, etc. There is, without a doubt, far less excuse for AirTags to exist than cameras in public spaces when comparing benefits to potential harm.
Is it the AI? If so, why does it matter if it’s AI vs paying a team to manually track your movements on these cameras? Seems hugely inefficient.
On the other hand, I have experienced a violent mugging on my street where neither my camera, nor any of my neighbors cameras, worked well enough in low light to identify the plates at all. Car pulled up, passenger jumped out and attacked two older ladies. There are plenty of cases just like this, where video evidence is lacking and would make all of the difference, that I personally feel vastly outweigh potential plate reading issues.
And if you think thoughtcrime is far-fetched or paranoid, you aren't paying attention. Governments around the world are moving to crush dissent by limiting gatherings for protest, labelling/charging people as terrorists without having committed any terrorist acts, etc. What makes you think anyone will ever be able to organise against oppression, even if the cause is just, when one is treated as guilty without committing any crime?
Why would this bother you? Because of the prospect of physical harm, or the idea that they are watching you/invading your privacy?
Stripping this down a bit: would I be fine with a very friendly camera crew documenting everything I do outside in public? No, I wouldn’t like that for privacy reasons. I also wouldn’t like government cameras publicly searchable, and wouldn’t like my phone location publicly searchable, but do not mind law enforcement having access when necessary. It’s a good thought experiment though, and maybe exposes hypocrisy in my view? Not entirely sure.
But to frame it in analogies as you are doing, it is not "a person following you". It is every person following you, at all times. A police officer, your local shop manager who is setting the prices of your groceries, your car insurer, your home insurer, your health insurer. The IRS (etc) agent assigned to you. Me, too. I'm following you, your wife, your children. You don't know me but here I am anyway taking pictures and then selling them to the user above you. Also my bank who sold me a credit card is now also following you. As well as the criminals that want to steal that credit card. Also that criminals kid, who's just curious. There's also a large man in a hat following you. As well as the person who is going to sell you your next car, they're following you too.
All these entities, and more, are following you. Carving you up as a product to sell and exploit.
And to you, you don't mind because you aren't aware. In the same way that a cow in a pen doesn't mind and isn't aware that an enormous system of industry is raising it to be carved up as a product to sell and exploit.
There is zero liberty being given up here. There are already tons of cameras, hundreds of millions in the United States alone, recording public spaces. Banning filming in public spaces absolutely would infringe on our freedoms however, which is not something I would support.
I don't know that hypocrisy is the word, but it does seem that you're going a long way to carve out an exception, where there is no real difference.
That is, it appears that you've simply decided one scenario is okay, even though that scenario itself begs the question. The article on which you're commenting demonstrates one reason that's so—the potential for abuse.
So, seems it all boils down to "out of sight, out of mind" in your framing. As long as you don't see the people invading your privacy, you're okay with believing that no one is. You don't mind that all of the tools of surveillance are in place, because you've defined a scenario wherein it's not possible that they're being used to actually surveil you.
In sum, your thought experiment is essentially, "would this be OK in a world that doesn't exist". But, you're answering "yes" in the world that does.
Maybe that's what you're sensing as "hypocrisy".
I would much rather have an efficient system with strict rules around access vs an inefficient system where each investigation takes massive amounts of human time.
You've agreed that this fact does not preclude uncomfortable scenarios, even for yourself. So, the discussion is about where people fall in their comfort.
I would sum up my response to the rest of your comment by noting the difference between individual citizens recording as they please, and a state-operated, always-on surveillance network, with the capacity to surveil every citizen outside of their homes.
It's worth noting here that the government famously faces stricter constitutional limits than do citizens.
The inefficiency you decry is what others value, as it protects privacy and constrains state power. There's long been a trade-off between efficiency and rights, which much of our legal system seeks to balance—as enshrined in various amendments.
Abuse of the frankly violative sort outlined in this article is but one concern, and likely cannot be properly contained in any case—particularly absent the requirement for warrants. This is precisely the reason warrants exist. We don't merely trust law enforcement to abide by its own "rules".
So, the larger point is that the very existence of state-operated surveillance networks is considered an intrusive form of abuse by many. One that uses previously unimaginable technology to circumvent the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, which consistency tells us would have otherwise explicitly protected us from such abuse.
Is it the AI or the number of cameras? It can’t be cameras in general, and I struggle to believe it’s the number of cameras because we have so many cities with tens of thousands of cameras already. So it’s just that it became too efficient and instead, for any investigation, we should pay a team to spend hundreds of man hours collecting and reviewing footage that a computer could have finished immediately?
To be clear, the controversy didn't just arise with AI—it only intensified.
>we should pay a team to spend hundreds of man hours...
Some argue that none of it should be happening, so would say that it should be prohibitively expensive. But, again, the added "efficiency" makes the problem far worse. Inefficiency is the throughline of the Fourth Amendment.
You've made clear that you value efficiency. But, you've not addressed any of the actual arguments against it.
Apples to orangutans.