Timeline for Why NOT use surveillance cameras in future world
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 5, 2020 at 1:38 | comment | added | Oleg V. Volkov | @SEistoopoliticallycorrect Well, sorry. The only answer to "how to make 2+2 = 3" is "you don't". Too bad it doesn't pleases you, but it won't become "non-answer" just because of that. | |
| Mar 5, 2020 at 1:37 | comment | added | Oleg V. Volkov | @dwizum Why are you outright LYING? I just scrolled up and copy/pasted from question and it says: "CCTV and other monitoring equipment". And yes, I checked history it was written exactly like this from begining. | |
| Feb 13, 2020 at 13:49 | comment | added | dwizum | @OlegV.Volkov This question literally says surveillance cameras and CCTV and then asks specifically why not to use those things for mass surveillance. It does seem to be asking specifically about those technical means. I don't disagree with you that there will always be a desire for surveillance in the general sense, and one technology becoming irrelevant doesn't mean that desire stops. | |
| Feb 13, 2020 at 0:34 | comment | added | In Hoc Signo | @OlegV.Volkov The reason why this is not a good answer is that it does not answer the question. I have no problem with reality; I have a problem with your non-answer. | |
| Feb 12, 2020 at 22:25 | comment | added | Oleg V. Volkov | @dwizum Maybe that's why both question and my answer uses "mass-surveliance" without specifying exact technical means? | |
| Feb 12, 2020 at 22:22 | comment | added | dwizum | @OlegV.Volkov the question seems to allow for either scenario - replaced by something better, or fell into disuse. Either way, you've reached a point in time at which the camera isn't relevant. | |
| Feb 12, 2020 at 22:15 | comment | added | Oleg V. Volkov | @SEistoopoliticallycorrect too bad reality is not good enough for you. | |
| Feb 12, 2020 at 22:11 | comment | added | Oleg V. Volkov | @dwizum "replaced by something better" is "advanced", not "felt into disuse". | |
| Feb 12, 2020 at 22:10 | comment | added | Oleg V. Volkov | @Hobbamok That's only if wishful thinking about world of rainbow ponies where everyone "outlaws" cams or have "magic unavoidable technology" that block cams and cams just SOMEHOW don't have similar anti-technology is good for you. | |
| Feb 12, 2020 at 18:32 | comment | added | In Hoc Signo | You can do better than that. This is one of the worst answers I have ever seen. | |
| Feb 12, 2020 at 18:02 | comment | added | dwizum | "Not a single advancement/technology that increases control ever fell into disuse for any reason" citation needed. Off the top of my head, I can think of a long list of control technologies that have fallen into disuse. Usually because they were replaced by something better, they became easy to defeat, or the thing they were designed to protect wasn't important any more. Basically, what all the other answers say. | |
| Feb 12, 2020 at 10:28 | comment | added | Hobbamok | Thank you for no answer. Also you're wrong, because there already are a lot of good answers here | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 17:14 | history | answered | Oleg V. Volkov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |