No, as I stated in the comment, as a concept there's no issue with that.
The problem is that the costs for preparing for these events are going to be enormous, are going to be shouldered by systems that are struggling to maintain current capabilities and that those costs are not proportional to the benefits being received by having these vehicles operating.
The orgs that create the problem receive billions in value, mostly, from the federal gov't while the costs are shouldered by local gov't. This is before you take into account how those same orgs are behaving in other areas of society.
I feel as though I've articulated my issues with the disproportionate expense of dealing with EV Class 8s from a first responder perspective being placed on local communities.
If you want to read that as not wanting the public to pay for first responders, you're of course free to do so.
Are you aware of any current country or any country throughout history that has granted the government powers like this and hasn't been abused? I think you're mistaken to blame lack of accountability and lack of public oversight. I think it's simply not possible.
To some extent, the U.K. They’ve had flock-style cameras for years, and while there is of course police abuse there’s far greater accountability. Brits are more comfortable with the idea of police having those powers - but of course that’s partly to do with the fact their police don’t have guns, so are generally less terrifying.
UK police officers are not routinely armed, but there armed response units, and under certain circumstances in e.g. railway stations and airports you will see pairs of officers walking about with machine guns on a regular basis.
Accountability: misuse of cctv or bodycam footage can lead to disciplinary action of various kinds including being sacked. The link below will give you an idea of the volume of formal complaints and the 'pipeline' from complaint to potential dismissal and criminal proceedings against officers;
The next step would be blunt "fuck you and your constitutions and amendments, we're in charge here, we own the guns (both police and army), the media, the businesses, and we won't go away peacefully regardless of your elections". It is already happening here in Serbia which used to be a civilized country.
It would be a different matter if certain measures were taken to secure it better. The cameras should not send any data to private parties. Access to their data should only be granted by a court order. Such court orders should be a matter of public record with no need for a FOIA request. No data should be retained longer than 7 days without a court order. Data provided as part of a court order should not be used for any purpose beyond that court order without another court order.
Of course, sensible policy like this won't happen. Better to cut them all down.
My assumption about the default use case is that people want to take normal pictures. For example, I wear them to sporting events, and it's a lot faster to take a picture of the action with my Meta glasses than with my iPhone.
Being able to snap a pic without getting too far out of the moment, like when I am at a museum or in a beautiful place is great.
Even better is being able to snap a picture of my grandchildren without distracting them. As soon as I pull out my phone, they are grabbing for it. Some of my favorite pics were taken by my meta glasses.
I can't think of a better example of intrusiveness than "as soon as I pull out my phone [the kids] are grabbing for it", which I'm reading as "the kids want to use it even tho it isn't theirs". We've trained the kids to intrude on someone else so they can get a dopamine hit.
If photo quality is the only concern, a DSLR camera will take a better picture than a modern phone, so you shouldn't use a phone either. But the person you're replying to didn't say it was "better", they said "faster", so that's what's more important to them.
reply