Hacker News Reader

Comment by OutOfHere | Hacker News Reader

Overall I think we need a lot more cameras in a lot more places. Their presence should be the default, but their feeds should not be monitored if there isn't a reported crime or a suspicion of one. I am not saying that the government should have default access to these feeds either.

A camera also helps exonerate someone who is not guilty, which is not an unimportant benefit.

View on HN

It sounds great until someone starts abusing. And the room for abuse seem very ample in such a case.

Counterpoint: cops.

A society that abides by its own laws should require police to keep their bodycams operative, under severe penalty.

We aren't that good, but being videotaped by civilians is moving the needle slightly, making them more accountable. It's the reason George Floyd's murders were (surprisingly) convicted.

Cops are working for the public and should be accountable for what they do. Exposing what cops do is not problematic, except maybe in some specific cases like a cop infiltrating some drug-dealer network.

Law enforcement can abuse more if a camera is not present. Often a camera is what exonerates a person, setting them free.

It’s 2025. You can deploy a camera anywhere you want. This article is a perfect example.

I’m instantly suspicious when I see a random phone charger plugged in a common area.

AR glasses are perpetually just around the corner. Everyone will be streaming video all the time.

While I like the positives of that (easier to catch some criminals), I fear the abuse potential and the negatives overall way more.

It's not just to catch criminals. It's also to free those who get unfairly witch-hunted and accused of a crime when the evidence (camera) shows otherwise.

“The Panopticon is good”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com