- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- world@quokk.au
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- world@quokk.au
- world@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/26423177
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/28167168
Removed by mod
The answer is when you are in a death situation.
No wonder, though. It seems like you don’t even intend to learn facts about the religion you’ll believe in.
Removed by mod
Then stop talking. Are you looking for trouble, clown?
edit: too bad, he chickened out of discussion.
Removed by mod
I did the math actually. And it seems like mass surveillance will only be justified if homicide rates are higher than 20% ( if 1 out of 5 people die in murder ). And only if surveillance actually stops all the crime ( which it doesn’t ) and only if there is nothing less problematic that could be used instead ( which there are plenty techniques, like normal regular investigation, where you ask people around on their own terms ). Basically the math says it isn’t justified by an apocalyptic margin.
deleted by creator
I am the same blenderdumbass as in odysee.com/@blenderdumbass:f and as in blenderdumbass.org
deleted by creator
😀
I documented the math I did on this article: https://blenderdumbass.org/articles/Surveillance_Harms_1000_Times_More_Than_It_Helps.md