Interesting article. I heard a good quote one time (can't seem to find it) basically summarizing the real purpose of the law to keep citizens in check through fear of breaking the law. Let's look at jay walking for a second - most people that would "jay walk" would not be considered criminals, but the way the law works if you break one law you are now a "law breaker" (to varying degrees). The more mundane of laws you can create, the more incidental "law breakers" you can and now the law makers have a looser criteria and reasoning with which they can imprison more people (and therefore control them).
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Yes and so I advocate for knowing exactly when you can be observed and when you can not be observed. Breaking the law is not the issue for minor infractions, look at speed cameras on roads as an example. The idea of speed cameras is not to catch criminals, but to have drivers slow down in accident prone areas; compliance through knowledge of observance. If we make it clear who is watching/listening/monitoring and when/how, we can comply.
Ultimately if society deems that we are overly-watched, then society will react to remove the surveillance to an acceptable level.