Explain to me why a massive surveillance state is bad

It's a massive drain on resources and just because you have the evidence doesn't necessarily mean you'll find the crime-even women who were raped on camera still get defense lawyers claiming they were lying, for example.

>wahhhhh muh Russia
oh the country that's always had a weak and corrupt judicial anyway?

Great argument.

There is literally nothing wrong with chipping everyone, a database that contains everyone's DNA, moving on to a cashless currency, algorithms scanning all emails and putting cameras everywhere. It is 2016. Time to fight crime with modern tools.

AM I BEING DETAINED??

>denounces things as non arguments
>uses current year meme
>there is literally nothing wrong with any of this whilst not arguing why there is nothing wrong with it
>sage

No citizen. Your chip signature was not registered at the scene of the crime nor was your DNA there either. You may go on with your merry way. Remember to report crimes anonymously with your smart phone using the CrimDetec™ app.

>libretardians consider this oppressive

if you're so worried about crime why not put everyone in cryogenic sleep
:thinking:

Really, we should just kill everyone, then there is no more crime.

>lmao I'll respond with some absurb bullshit non sequitur that'll show him humanity is horrible they should just put us out of our misery amirite xD

Not an argument.

Not an argument.

Not an argument.

first you need to field a positive argument for a surveillance state

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof#Shifting_the_burden_of_proof

>inb4 I was just baiting

we know

nyc is crawling with cameras it's practically impossible to get away with a crime these days there. they convict people by literally piecing together footage from security cameras in private stores and traffic cameras

with more tech it will get even harder, spefically chipping everyone and keeping everyone's DNA in a database

boom you just got #btfo

Not an argument.

Not an argument.

That's not a positive argument, that's predicting the future.

Otherwise known as

not an argument :^)

Sad!

Source?

seems like you're pulling out 2 factors with a slight link and implying one causes the other
I'd also like to see proof on there being more cameras and more crimes being stopped

>If you stick your dick in that blender it will be a bad thing!
>(You): huttrr nod an argument stop predicting da future

Not an argument.

Not an argument.

Def. not an argument

Not an argument.

Is this the power of libertarian intellectuals?

naa

Faggot OP isn't even trying.

>don't meme me
>nothing but meme responses

Is the goverment as it is right now perfect?
Will it forever be?
Most likely you agree that the answer to this question is no. Any functional democracy has the ability to change in order to go with the time. Be it for good or bad.

If the latter happens it is in your interest for meetings and communication to happen between citizens without goverment knowlege.
Many major changes in history were only possible because the people could communicate without their leaders knowing of it.

>minimal

It all boils down to how much a society can tolerate minimal surveillance. A society of masculine/mature men can tolerate it while a society of absurdly spoiled/feminine numales addicted to diluted anti-conceptional hormones cannot.

so we have to be at the mercy of criminal gangs roving our streets at night and Muslim terrorists plotting to shoot up our schools all because a bunch of redditors are insecure about their dick pics on their smart phone and don't want some guy at the NSA to see them?

really electrifies my circuits

>minimal

These problems wouldn't even exist in an armed society of non-numales and you know it.

I don't know of a country where redditors hold such an influence.

Because it hurts my feefees and yes my feefees are important. I'm not even being sarcastic, I don't feel comfortable when some Indian neckbeard has a complete access to all my data.

Because governments are composed of humans and humans can be corrupt.

not an argument

Jennifer Lawrence please go, nobody masturbated to your fappening pics anyway

I think it's better to remove all niggers and muslims from the nation rather than having people monitor what I masturbate to.

Because of the lack of personal freedom and the power of the state.

If we wanted socialism we would move to a socialist country.

I think that is in direct conflict with the Constitution.

>This thread in my first ten minutes on Veeky Forums
oh dear.

Here is the answer OP.
Total surveillance leads to corruption of established powers over rising ones.
>Doxxing anti-establishment political figures
>Blackmailing anti-establishment political figures
>Blackmailing citizens of any caliber to bend to the will of whoever happens to be in charge of this surveillance department

This all seems fine if you never commit a crime that is damaging to your reputation. But let's say a person commits a crime in their youth and does time in prison. That individual is open to having this crime haunt them for the rest of their life despite having served their time and receiving forgiveness from all related parties. (aka total bullshit) All this is goes only one way, of course.

Also the inherent risks behind having massive data centers full of people's information. It all becomes Watch_Dogs.

potential for misuse

As is mass surveillance.

wtf does surveillance have to do with socialism?

America has a more sophisticated surveillance apparatus today than the USSR could have ever dreamed of

This is rush Limbaugh tier understanding of politics...

Really? So you are telling me that the U.S. in 2016 with all the latest technology have a more sophisticated surveillance apparatus than a piece of shit communist shithole had in the 80s?

Wow that really made my brain go into overload.

It almost as if surveillance isn't a unique property of socialism.

Really mashes your potatoes doesn't it?

Russia has cameras everywhere due to having police as corrupt as American police.
>Non argument contained

It's almost like surveillance is a must in a socialist society, otherwise the state can not control its subordinates, almost like it's anti-capitalism in its very nature.

lmao what does this post even mean kiddo

That you should go back to /r/BernieSanders and never come back.

Not an argument

Because you're not the one who gets to decide if you "have nothing to hide." There are plenty of people who would love to use what you do and say in private against you.

Why would I try to argue a non-argument in the first place?

kinda crazy then, how a capitalist country has more sophisticated surveillance despite supposedly being dedicated to preventing unlawful searches of it's citizens. Why should better technology be cited as the reason for this, when surveillance is widely opposed in this country in the first place?

lmao how are they gonna use the fact that Angela white is my favorite porn star against me? And who is gonna do it? Simply pass a law stating information gathered can only be used in court for the purpose of conviction of a crime.

Lmao get a grip

>

It's almost like in a capitalist country, things move forward, things such like technology which helps you if you want to have surveillance.

Because any corrupt state will have to control its citizens, or it will lose its power.

Not an argument.

This is Veeky Forums kiddo, reddit may be more your speed

And? OP said constitution is irrelevant in this debate so I'm following his guidelines.

So capitalism leads to corruption?

Not really sure what you're saying here.

>statists think people can't be trusted
>so everyone needs to be under constant surveillance
>by certain people
>who can be trusted

No, power leads to corruption. However, a capitalist society does not need corruption in order to furthers its existance whereas a socialist society depends on it.

>Simply pass a law
>This will stop information being "leaked"

Literally not an argument, just buzzwords and circular logic.

What do you mean by surveillance?

You mean cameras in every street and public spaces? Because you'd need to be an idiot not to want those, it is actually great for helping solve violent crime.

You mean the government being able to, through the Judiciary, solicit my IP and physical address so they can trace me if I do something criminal like CP or whatever on the internet? You'd need to be an idiot not to want those too.

You mean the government reading my mail, keylogging my computer and other things in that line, through purely administrative action? That is shitty because it is too easily used against political opponents if the government decides to act that way.

It's like he's been asleep for the past ~4 years or so, lmao.

Snowden sure paid attention to that law!

Do you trust your mail man not to steal your gift cards your grandma sends you in the mail?

Do you trust your town police man not to blow you away because he's having a bad day?

Well congratulations, you can trust an intelligence agency to spy on you as preventative measure to prevent crime syndicates and terror cells gaining power

How have you arrived to this conclusion? I mean, don't get me wrong here, I oppose surveillance whole-heartedly, probably quite a bit more than most here. I don't think, for example, the government has the right to issue warrants on a location based on an IP address, for example, because the person committing fraudulent activity may or may not actual live near that location.

I don't trust either of those, are you retarded?

Well maybe you should take your schizophrenia medications then.

Because a capitalist society is not dependent on a large powerful state whereas socialism is directly dependent on it. The smaller the state, the better for capitalism and vice versa, the bigger the state the better for socialism.

Not an argument.

I guess that's why Somalia is a capitalist powerhouse

rofl

Somalia is ancap though.

What does Somalia have to do with anything?

>Prove a negative
Not how it works, dickhead. You prove that surveillance is good, and then I'll attempt to refute your arguments while supplying new arguments of my own.

Oh, and just for flavor
>Muh suhcureeetee is not an argument

I'm glad you finally understand statism

They have a small state. The Federal Government of Somalia, you see, is a republic. It consists of democratically elected representatives. This government does not have very much power, so it should be good for capitalism. Somalia is capitalist, after all.

>asking for an argument why something is bad means you think it's good

What school for disabled autistics did you graduate from?

Yes of course, because that is how the world works. If state is small, country should be a really strong capitalist country, just like that.

>Simply pass a law

This is your problem. You are viewing the issue as if you are the one making laws. Of course unlimited power sounds great if you're the one who has it. But it could just as easily be your worst ideological enemy.

>It costs a lot of money and drains resources
>Gives the government too much power over citizens
There you go, comrade.

The postman and the policeman do occasionally do those things though. The reason we still hold trust is that there is a visible system of oversight for those people when they fuck up. How can the public tell if what is being gathered about is being used properly? How do I know that something unpleasant but not illegal will not be used against me? Intelligence services can do a lot in the name of national security (and for themselves), just ask pic related.

I'm sure you would support the allowances of backdoors for encryption then for the purpose of security as well.

>The smaller the state, the better for capitalism
Moving the goalposts, I see.

Your question is based on the assumption that the government starts out with and possesses every possible power unless otherwise demonstrated, when the correct assumption is that the government deserves no powers except those which can be explicitly justified. Thus, rather than automatically assuming that the government has the right to spy on people and asking others to disprove this assertion, it falls on you and the government to justify this right in the first place.

tl;dr: burden of proof is on you

Germany, france and every other nation in Europe that has had a terror attack already knew about their terrorists, but they did nothing, chances are it was the same in burgerland

nanny states and nanny policies are results of an effeminate population

start livestreaming your life for us all days all weeks and if you don't you're an idiot as you're not prepared to do what you're proposing

When did I ever say that if state is small, the country will automatically become a successful capitalist state?

I said that a capitalist country will do much better if the state is smaller, just like the socialist country would deem it more beneficial if the state was big and powerful.

Because there would be anarachy if everyone was aware of the wrongs we all constantly commit.

Imagine the size of the police force if every single crooked/dirty/over zealous cop was removed at once.
Same in politics, shop workers, car salesmen, accountants, soldiers.

The world would come to a grinding halt, and be objectively worse for the few "decent" people left.
Sometimes the morally right choice is not the best one.

>start livestreaming your life for us all days all weeks and if you don't you're an idiot as you're not prepared to do what you're proposing
This is a great proposal. I'd like advocates of government surveillance to voluntarily turn over all their electronic information to the government.

>The smaller the state, the better for capitalism
Somalia is a small state, therefore, it should have a much better capitalist system than a large state, like, say, China. An actual socialist country, doing better than this small state.