Do Americans actually oppose public surveillance cameras and stricter civic laws, or is that just a loud minority?
Posted by Last_Clothes6848@reddit | AskAnAmerican | View on Reddit | 232 comments
Watching videos about daily life in Japan, Singapore, and China made me curious. Those places have public cameras, strict littering fines, and tough drug laws, and the streets are clean, safe, and orderly.
I get the civil liberties concerns. But does opposition to these things represent most Americans, or a vocal minority?
For those who visited these countries, did your view change? Where do you draw the line between personal freedom and civic order?
alaskawolfjoe@reddit
Most of us are uncomfortable with surveillance.
CerberusInExile@reddit
I disagree. I think most people don't worry about it until posts like this bring it to their attention.
I'm not saying that people are happy about the surveillance, just that it's not exactly a day-to-day worry. Outside of crackheads, I don't know anyone that goes around worrying over what cameras are watching them and why.
RealFlatworm-@reddit
Hmm actually cameras for littering are great. I hate slobs.
WVildandWVonderful@reddit
Ask your city council to put out more public trash cans and recycling bins.
Fine heavy trucks that don’t tarp/cover the trailer.
Etc.
Adding surveillance does little to solve the problem of litter and a lot of potential collateral harm.
RealFlatworm-@reddit
I just carry my trash with me. I know cameras don't do anything. It's a joke.
I do love speed cameras. They have made a huge difference in our town.
No_Palpitation_4242@reddit
yeah but then we also complain about how dirty our cities are compared to places like singapore
seems like we want the benefits without accepting what actually makes it work. i deliver food around the city and see people throwing trash everywhere, then same people probably wondering why streets look terrible
maybe surveillance for serious crimes makes sense but using cameras to catch every small thing feels too much
albertnormandy@reddit
Cameras do not distinguish between petty crime and serious crime. I will never trust a politician or a tech bro when they pinky promise to use the data responsibly. And even if they promise and stick to it, once the door to that thing what stops someone 20 years later from reneging on the promise? The only responsible action is to not gather the data in the first place. Everything else is just incrementally taking us towards a tech dystopian future.
WVildandWVonderful@reddit
It’s a continuous warrantless wiretap.
PerfectAnonym@reddit
Japan appears to accomplish this without a surveillance state. Not that there isn't a million valid criticisms of Japan, but I'd rather we strive towards achieving a high trust, civics minded society which to me seems like the polar opposite of a surveillance state
newimprovedmoo@reddit
Though it'd be great if unlike Japan we can do it without being a de facto ethnostate.
SlothFoc@reddit
Do we?
comrade_zerox@reddit
Those are the peoplw who don't go into cities in the first place. I live about an hour outside Chicago and the amount of people I interact with who NEVER venture into the city because it's "dangerous" is absurd.
Ceorl_Lounge@reddit
If I go to Philly or Balmer I KNOW what I'm getting into. Whining about it or wishing for more of a police state isn't going to help.
creatyvechaos@reddit
Yeah I think those guys are the loud minority 🤣
C21H27Cl3N2O3@reddit
Japan is the same way. It’s not an issue of surveillance, it’s a cultural issue. Their kids are raised to respect society and keep it clean. Our kids are not. A police state will not solve issues like littering, we would need a complete rewrite of our cultural values.
Delta1225@reddit
I'm not sure what the solution is, but I remember when Singapore caned that American kid in the 90s.
Silkies4life@reddit
Which is exactly why Singapore is clean. They don’t fuck around with punishment, all that kid did was some graffiti lol.
RedRedBettie@reddit
I don't and would def not want to be like Singapore in this way
ENovi@reddit
I genuinely think this mindset is a fundamental aspect of the American worldview and it transcends any left/right political divide. Many of the ideals and mythos we absorb from day one can be (overly) simplified as “Do anything you want as long as you don’t interfere with someone else’s rights to also do that and the government can fuck off if it thinks it has a say in that.” As a country that is (and will probably always be) something we struggle to perfect but it’s one of the most fundamental beliefs we have that shape our culture and how we perceive the world. Even many of the historic and modern issues we face ultimately come from that view.
For that reason the idea of even being indirectly monitored by any government agency in an attempt to prevent crime doesn’t sit right with us. If I’m not committing a crime or even violating a public ordinance then my face shouldn’t be on any government surveillance device. I choose to have a driver’s license and enter my info into a government database just as I choose to enter a store that has a sign informing patrons that surveillance cameras are in use or use a website that stores my data. If I don’t grant that permission or agree to those terms then the government or any corporation can fuck off. My existence is my own and they can kiss my balls if they think they’re entitled to that in even the tiniest way. I feel confident saying this attitude is shared by the overwhelming majority of Americans. That attitude is a core component of our identity and something as seemingly innocuous as public cameras violates that principle.
WVildandWVonderful@reddit
I think you’re giving present-day Republicans far too much credit.
In what way do they keep to themselves anymore? They are all about using the government to bully and criminalize anything that they see as abnormal. And surveillance cameras help entities find new targets to own the libs.
C21H27Cl3N2O3@reddit
The votes don’t show that. If those people are concerned about surveillance, they don’t show that by continuing to vote for politicians who rubber stamp more and more cameras.
comrade_zerox@reddit
Alot of Americans are politically illiterate. Thats how you got the wils split ticket scenario last election where people voted for BOTH Trump and AOC, because they're "outsiders".
C21H27Cl3N2O3@reddit
And if they can’t be bothered enough to actually learn the positions of the people they voted for, I would argue they are not opposed to mass surveillance. They say they are, but it doesn’t bother them enough that they actually do something about it. They give their passive approval by ignoring it.
curiousleen@reddit
ESPECIALLY with the surge of - ai along with a government openly creating a policed nation that has created a database of political opponents, is incredibly comfortable with manipulating images to fit their narrative, and is increasingly labeling any citizen who disagrees “a terrorist”.
PacSan300@reddit
On the topic of AI, models like Claude Mythos are potentially going to make security/surveillance aspects even more dangerous, given how scarily good they evidently are.
albertnormandy@reddit
If the cost of not creating a larger surveillance state is the odd criminal escape, so be it. I should be able to drive my car without it being broadcast to a data farm.
whatshouldwecallme@reddit
Of all the examples, YOUR CAR?? The thing registered with the state, subject to a state license to operate it, required to display an easily readable and identifiable plate? It’s the last place you should expect privacy.
albertnormandy@reddit
None of those things allow the government to track when and where I drive on anything approaching the same scale as putting flock cameras everywhere.
BankOk9472@reddit
Any car build in the last 20 years can be tracked without cameras. Not to mention the listening device we all carry around.
SkiingAway@reddit
No? There are plenty of cars up through very recently that do not have any cellular link. AFAIK there's still a few on the market even now.
BankOk9472@reddit
If there are they number in the few.
albertnormandy@reddit
You are not disproving my point. If anything, you are proving that the slippery slope “fallacy” isn’t really a fallacy.
BankOk9472@reddit
Was trying to disprove anything. Just pointing out that worrying about surveillance is a moot point in this day and age. That's why more and more laws are being created to govern HOW surveillance is used rather than its placement or existence. Such as the info your car sends to the dealership can only be used for diagnostics and not location sharing etc.
junjunjune@reddit
But it's not an odd criminal escape is it? America's crime rates are disproportionately high among all the developed nations in the world.
mkt853@reddit
Doesn't America already have the world's largest prison population? How many more people need to be imprisoned before everyone's desire for strict law and order is sated?
junjunjune@reddit
I mean, don't commit crimes? Though we need to acknowledge the racial bias and socio-economic bias in America's prison system.
GreenBeanTM@reddit
“Don’t commit crimes”
Oh what a comfortable life you’ve lived.
junjunjune@reddit
I hate to tell u this but not committing crimes is the norm in all other developed countries.
GreenBeanTM@reddit
I love to tell you this, it’s also the norm here.
junjunjune@reddit
Yes clearly. Which goes back to the original point that America has a high crime rate. Seems we both agree then.
SlippingAwayWith@reddit
How would increased surveillance lower crime rates?
It’s why you’re using, “But it's not an odd criminal escape is it? America's crime rates are disproportionately high among all the developed nations in the world.” as an argument, isn’t it?
junjunjune@reddit
Well, if you simply googled it, there are tons of answer. Let me summarise, it dramatically increases the likelihood of apprehension, resulting in a safer community. It deters crime. Footage aids in putting criminals away. And more.
All that to say, I'm not for or against mass surveillance, especially in the States' context. These points are from academic studies, not my opinions.
SlippingAwayWith@reddit
I’m asking you, not Google. You’re presenting the flawed argument.
How would it dramatically increase the likelihood of apprehension? How much manpower do you believe is necessary to cover a city the size of Los Angeles, for example.
Should it be a federal or state law? How would the federal government make such a law and enforce it in California?
junjunjune@reddit
Well maybe you should ask Google since you want such detailed explanations. My argument is not flawed because it's not an argument. I'm listing facts from peer reviewed academic studies. Don't like it? Go conduct your own studies.
RedStatePurpleGuy@reddit
I think this boils down to a textbook example of the ends not justifying the means.
SlippingAwayWith@reddit
Again, you’re presenting the argument. I’m asking you. Are you having trouble understanding what I’ve written?
junjunjune@reddit
Do you know what an argument means? An argument is an opinion. I'm telling you facts. Opinions =/= facts.
SlippingAwayWith@reddit
You’re not telling facts, you’re presenting your ideas, and suggesting I ask Google.
Again, if you’re not arguing, why write, “But it's not an odd criminal escape is it? America's crime rates are disproportionately high among all the developed nations in the world.”?
junjunjune@reddit
My ideas? You can literally GOOGLE it yourself. Just because you don't like these facts, doesn't make them not real. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.
Also, you don't have to believe me. Go search up America's crime statistics among first world nations yourself. Getting mad over statistics is truly something else.
SlippingAwayWith@reddit
I think you need remedial English lessons, I’ll be honest.
junjunjune@reddit
I literally answered your question already but you didn't like the answer. I'm not even a supporter of mass surveillance, esp in the States' context. I'm quoting studies on this matter, word for word. If you don't like it, idk what to tell u. Feel free to argue with the researchers then.
SlippingAwayWith@reddit
So, you’re suggesting then that I should ask Google why u/junjunjune believes surveillance would lower crime rates in the US?
junjunjune@reddit
No, I'm suggesting you should Google "Does surveillance lower crime rates?". God, common sense come on.
SlippingAwayWith@reddit
It’s fascinating to me that you genuinely believe the problem doesn’t lie with you. You obviously don’t understand what I’ve written or asked. I can’t possibly make it any clearer.
I’ll just assume you couldn’t follow the original comment you replied to either and just felt like being whimsical.
junjunjune@reddit
It's fascinating to me that you're incapable of a Google search.
z44212@reddit
Crime rates or arrest rates?
junjunjune@reddit
Crime rates. Of course if I'm misunderstanding anything, please correct me.
z44212@reddit
Arrest rates are not the same as crime rate. Different areas are patrolled differently. The perception of people is different for different races, socioeconomic affiliation, etc.
As a quick example, as a highway patrolman, I could pull over every third car or every three thousandth. I control the "crime rate" by controlling the arrest rate.
If I have the prejudice that everyone with tattoos is a criminal, you will find me arresting people with tattoos at a greater rate.
MissFabulina@reddit
How would being surveilled in public prevent someone from killing their wife in their home? The US has a higher rate of homicides, but homicides are usually committed against someone the perpetrator knows. So, it could be done behind closed doors...in private.
Being constantly surveilled does not prevent serious crimes from being committed. It helps catch the jaywalkers and gum chewers. How does that make anyone safer? It does remove freedoms, but it doesn't protect you from being murdered.
C21H27Cl3N2O3@reddit
Crime rates have been consistently falling over the last 30 years without a police state.
albertnormandy@reddit
Even if what you say is true, so be it.
junjunjune@reddit
Wait actual genuine question: hypothetically if implementing mass surveillance would decrease petty and serious crime by a huge amount, would you be yay or nay for it?
Appropriate-Food1757@reddit
Nay. Crime wasn’t high and isn’t high already.
shammy_dammy@reddit
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
MissFabulina@reddit
I don't think that you are American. Because it is an American ideal that we should not give up our freedoms for "safety". Now, there are a lot of right-wing types who want to make the US into a police state, but most Americans would be against this. Being filmed 24/7 is not the solution. It won't make us safer but it will take away our freedoms.
junjunjune@reddit
Interesting perspective!
albertnormandy@reddit
Nay.
Also, catching criminals is not preventing crime, but punishing it. People who murder, rape, etc, always think they will never get caught. Many states still have the death penalty on the books and yet people in those states still commit murder.
Appropriate-Food1757@reddit
Crime rates aren’t high. Gun violence is
Zappagrrl02@reddit
That’s not because of lack of surveillance
junjunjune@reddit
Never said it was. I'm not a proponent of mass surveillance. I just think the crime rate is rather sad.
TsundereLoliDragon@reddit
Thanks for making us aware.
BlowFish-w-o-Hootie@reddit
We already have mass surveillance with a video camera in everyone's hands. It doesn't stop stupid people from doing stupid or even criminal things.
In Singapore, it is culturally acceptable for the people to police each other in public. It is not just because of the officials and formal civil obedience laws, fines, and penalties.
In America, this is seen as intruding on other people's affairs, and is mocked as being a Karen or Kevin.
Freedom is more important than security. When people give up privacy for security, they sacrifice both.
junjunjune@reddit
Yeah. I don't see mass surveillance ever working in the States. There's too much cultural emphasis on freedom (which makes sense given America's history).
breathing__tree@reddit
Because of the drug laws. It’s not violent crime.
creatyvechaos@reddit
A couple reshuffled books and budgets could easily fix that. Too bad the greater majority of people are short sighted
junjunjune@reddit
Agreed. I think with proper governance and better leaders, many of the issues faced can be fixed rather quickly.
pgm123@reddit
That's true before mass surveillance and almost certainly has nothing to do with the lack of it.
junjunjune@reddit
Tbh I don't think mass surveillance is the solution for crime in the States, especially since the population is just way too spread out to even implement smth like this. Plus, it would go against the culture of freedom. But the truth is that crime rates are disproportionately high... which is sad because I really love the country
Megalocerus@reddit
I like stores and houses having their own cameras. Then there has to be a crime reported before the government can look at it. They can't just browse.
Alternative-Pear9096@reddit
That's funny. I mean, if I had a camera and surveilled you and kept the video in my house, maybe.
But Ring puts it all the cloud and gives the government the key. Gets you crazy people to pay for the surveillance the government is barred from doing, and then you pay Ring to give the government access to content it is legally barred from collecting itself.
C21H27Cl3N2O3@reddit
Too many Americans have completely switched sides on the old saying “better 5 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be imprisoned.”
ehunke@reddit
I think most people in general are uncomfortable with surveillance, and that goes for Americans and non, I just think some countries everything has been under surveillance 24 hours a day for so long that people got semi used to it, but they don't like it. The difference though between Japan or Singapore and the US is everything in this country gets done via whatever company bid the lowest to do the job...so if red light cameras were actually tagging people for running red lights and surveillance cameras were actually catching and identifying drug dealers, purse snatchers, other dangerous criminals we wouldn't be so against it, but, they are so cheaply made (again lowest bidder) that they don't function well, people get tickets in the mail for running red lights on days they didn't even drive anywhere, people get arrested for fitting the profile or the guy on the camera who robbed someone...the difference is that Singapore would actually invest the money needed on a public surveillance network so that when the footage is used to make an arrest or a fine there is no question over who was on camera
IamGleemonex@reddit
How do you hope to achieve a satisfactory answer to this question? Even if everyone here says yes, you could just view the answers as a “loud majority”.
To your actual post, most US cities are relatively “clean, safe, and orderly” without massive public surveillance. Using that as justification for being watched 24/7 by big brother therefore defeats the purpose and is just an end around civil liberties. I’ve been to Singapore and to Shanghai. I didn’t feel any difference in terms of safety in either as compared to in the US. In terms of cleanliness, Shanghai was basically the same as any major US city in terms of cleanliness.
So no, I absolutely would not want a surveillance state dressed up in fallacy.
C21H27Cl3N2O3@reddit
I’ll use this sub’s favorite phrase when responding to foreign posters: reddit does not represent real life. Even if every person here says how much they think Americans are against this, that doesn’t change the fact that the politicians implementing these policies and approving these cameras are still being elected.
Bawstahn123@reddit
Especially this subreddit.
This subreddit has sworn to heaven and back that very-real real-world trends dont actually exist/matter.
This subreddit is not "reddit-America", and like pretty much all the "Ask A Country" subreddits, actually has a fairly-negative reputation outside of itself
C21H27Cl3N2O3@reddit
It used to be better, but the last few years have gone downhill. Foreigners asking about negative aspects of the country have their questions removed while we get numerous “why is America the best ever” questions every day that stay up. Americans who mention anything negative get called “doomers” or have their experiences denied. Not to mention the new “say something nice about this state” series as if the US doesn’t already get a ton of positive coverage. And then you have the issue of mods spreading conspiracy theories.
Nervous_Ladder_1860@reddit
Well if you go through and look at replies, all they would have to do is count who supports it and who opposes it if you are just looking to see peoples preferences on the matter, does someones question have to have a satisfactory answer? Even in actual research in social sciences it is just opinions we ask for and those opinions don't mean they represent everyone but they can give insight.
PacSan300@reddit
It should be noted that Singapore became super clean due in large part to hefty fines and punishments. Before fines and organized cleaning, it absolutely had littering issues like many other countries do.
As for Shanghai, I came across more than one Instagram reel lately where an American went there and started lamenting about US cities lagging behind. One guy said that he felt “betrayed” by the US, while another guy asked, “Where is our (American) tax money going?” My guy, you are comparing places in Shanghai like Pudong and the Bund, which have been deliberately planned and maintained to be showcase places, to ordinary places in the US, if not bad places in the US.
IamGleemonex@reddit
I didn’t want to cloud my initial response with this, but since you specifically mentioned Shanghai… OP mentioned “tough drug laws”. I’ve been to Shanghai 3 times. 2 of those, I was offered drugs randomly at bars/clubs. Not counting festivals, I can only thing of a couple of times total I have been offered drugs at random in the US (not counting pot in either place, I mean real drugs) and one of those was a dude on Bourbon Street in New Orleans offering random passerby’s crushed up baby aspirin as coke.
Granted, I’m white, so yeah, in China, when I go to the ex-pat areas (not the tourist areas like the Bund), it’s safer to assume I’m not some government narc. But still the fact that randoms in clubs in Shanghai ask if I want anything, makes me think China isn’t so hard on drugs as OP is making it out to be.
bangbangracer@reddit
It's very common to hear opposition to public surveillance cameras. I still remember my friend hearing about the cameras in London and him genuinely asking why they didn't destroy them.
Also, I wouldn't exactly cite those examples specifically as good examples. They all have big issues around criminal justice.
junjunjune@reddit
I mean tbf, America has big issues around criminal justice too.
GhostOfJamesStrang@reddit
Sure, but not because of a lack of surveillance.
We can and should address injustice. Not do things to potentially add to it.
junjunjune@reddit
Yeah. I was just pointing how that saying countries like Singapore, Japan etc. have big issues in their justice system despite mass surveillance is a flawed argument
GhostOfJamesStrang@reddit
You don't think mass surveillance is a symptom of the larger problem?
I sure do.
junjunjune@reddit
What's the larger problem?
GreenBeanTM@reddit
I mean racism and sexism to name two massive ones.
junjunjune@reddit
Agreed, but don't they exist already despite no mass surveillance?
Popular-Local8354@reddit
Sure, no need to add to them.
bangbangracer@reddit
We do. But different is not a synonym for good.
Zappagrrl02@reddit
Americans have a strong belief in the right to privacy which was long upheld by our Supreme Court prior to its current configuration.
ZeroQuick@reddit
SCOTUS ruled in 1967 that there is no expectation of privacy in a public space.
Alternative-Pear9096@reddit
There is a difference between "I can see you pick your nose on that park bench" and "I am using cameras to track every step you take for 47 blocks."
RedStatePurpleGuy@reddit
This is an important distinction that is lost on many people. The laws haven't kept up with the technology.
Zappagrrl02@reddit
It’s still part of the American ethos and folks don’t want the government spying on them
RedStatePurpleGuy@reddit
Yes, I think a majority of Americans object to such intrusive government surveillance. It's always baffled me that Europeans and Asians are so accepting of the practice.
GreenBeanTM@reddit
Do *you* want a country run by Trump to know your every action? Why would we?
Also, you’re not going to get the majority opinion here, because the majority of Americans are not on this sub. You’re just getting a different section of the population’s opinion.
getElephantById@reddit
According to surveys (like this one and this one) Americans either strongly favor or strongly oppose surveillance in public spaces. The difference between poll results, I suspect, is in how you ask the question, as well as when you ask the question: when you ask it right after a major public tragedy (like the Boston marathon bombing) you get more people in support.
My hunch is that with trust in government quite low at the moment, the most current polls would probably be very strongly against. At the same, private surveillance (Ring cameras and the like) are quite common, which says something on its own.
Personally, I'm against it, and my position has never really changed: You have to oppose it by default, because you can't go back once its in place. Once the foot is in the door, the door just opens wider and wider. We've got drones, we've got AI, and we've got laws preventing the AI from monitoring everything we do using drones. The AI and drones aren't going away, so we have to protect the laws.
_maezing@reddit
our whole history is kind of based upon valuing personal freedom, and then there's the added fact that nearly every other day we have news stories about black people in the US being targeted by police, and now Hispanic people being targeted by the federal government. we can't really afford to increase surveillance without SIGNIFICANT oversight because we live in a society with current and historical racial discrimination.
travelinmatt76@reddit
Flock is one of the biggest surveillance companies in the US. They're networks are vulnerable to exploits. They also sell your data to 3rd party companies. They track your whereabouts, damage to your car, and what bumper stickers you have on your car
Boopa0011@reddit
My city had an absolute uproar when our police department contracted with a company that provided cameras to track and analyze license plates and so on. It was so vociferous that the city council voted to void the contract.
A lot of Americans still have the sense that at any moment, the government could swoop in and decide the constitution is no longer valid and everybody is suddenly at risk of arrest based on stupid surveillance projects. A lot of Americans are kind of weirded out by the prevalence of private security cameras everywhere, but when it's the government itself doing the surveillance, it can easily go from "weirded out" to "large demonstrations in the streets."
SteampunkExplorer@reddit
Big brother watching you is an affront to civic order. 🫠 He has no right to do that, any more than I do.
glowybutterfly@reddit
Cue 'Don't Tread On Me' snek.
marylander_@reddit
I would say the majority of Americans oppose it. On average we tend to lean towards personal freedom over civic order. It also doesn't help that there's pretty bad political unrest right now and so many people don't trust the government. So even if they would be ok with it in theory, they don't want that power in this government's hands
malibuklw@reddit
Our local government contracts out school bus stop sign surveillance, so it adds an extra level of people not to trust.
Alternative-Pear9096@reddit
wtf? There is surveillance at school bus stops? Which are just like, people's driveways?? wtaf??
malibuklw@reddit
There’s two things related to school busses. The first is speed cameras in school zones and the second is on the actual buses. Those don’t necessarily bother me, because people run the school bus stop signs and speed through school zones and it’s incredibly unsafe. But they are contracted out so not only is the data going to a third party, the majority of the money from the tickets also goes to that third party.
Ceorl_Lounge@reddit
And those contractors get paid by the school district AND the feds who would want access to the footage.
Alternative-Pear9096@reddit
You don;t actually "get the civil liberties concerns."
Those are CONSTITUTIONAL concerns. The US Constitution is founded on principles and rights that other countries have no expectation of, even close similar ones like England.
Civil Liberties are violated as CONSTITUTIONAL violations. Civic order will be managed without making us unamerican or it will not happen.
You think your freedom is something you don't have a right to, and which your government can supersede. In the US, those liberties are understood to be granted to all people at birth and should not be messed with.
The overreach of money into politics has eroded many of our freedoms, but this one is fundamental and at some point we will win it back or we will fall as country. It's who we are.
It's not about personal freedom or civic order. It's about our rights as Americans, per our founding law. It's not about personal preference.
artemisinagayway@reddit
The US isn’t the only country with the rights we have. Canada also has most of the same rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Alternative-Pear9096@reddit
What is your point? How does this statement clarify or counter anything I said or better answer OPs question?
machagogo@reddit
Yes. Generally speaking the idea of "you shouldn't care if you have nothing to hide" is an abhorrent concept to us.
The book 1984 was meant as a cautionary tale of a dystopian society. Not a playbook
RealFlatworm-@reddit
Criminals do hate cameras, can't get around that fact
NameLips@reddit
Americans believe quite strongly that the government should leave them the fuck alone, and that we should not sacrifice our liberty for security.
Surveillance comes with incredible potential for abuse. We do not trust the government not to abuse its power. We do not trust our fellow citizens to elect people who won't try to oppress the rest of us.
Complex210@reddit
Totally fine with it, got nothing to hide.
Accomplished_Mix7827@reddit
Until the government decides something totally innocuous you enjoy doing is illegal now.
Remember that cannabis was illegal for decades for pretty much no reason.
Remember that porn was illegal for a while, and looks like it might become so again with the recent anti-porn crusade.
Remember alcohol was illegal at one point.
Remember that the government used to regulate who you were allowed to have sex with. Gay sex was illegal in some states up until the 2000s, and interracial sex was still illegal in some places when my grandparents were kids.
I don't trust the government with mass surveillance because I don't trust the government as the arbiter of morality. All it takes is a small group of crusaders being loud and annoying enough for long enough for politicians to regulate aspects of our lives that the government has no place in.
Complex210@reddit
Then ill protest those potential future issues when/if they arise.
Accomplished_Mix7827@reddit
And if you lose? If they do ban your favorite video games, your favorite music, the things that bring you joy? Will you just meekly obey when the government tells you what to do?
Complex210@reddit
I believe in democracy and the will of the people.
If the people vote to ban video games, that is the will of the people, but I would not expect them to.
Accomplished_Mix7827@reddit
That's cute that you still think the government actually represents the will of the people, and not just the will of whoever's paying them.
The_Se7enthsign@reddit
The thing about Americans… We don’t mind cameras on “them”. We just don’t want those cameras on “us”. Do a secret vote to only put the cameras in certain areas, and it would pass overwhelmingly.
revengeappendage@reddit
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
camicalm@reddit
Ben Franklin, is that you?
revengeappendage@reddit
Nah. Just me quoting him lol
Lugbor@reddit
He'd be spending most of his time in the NSFW subreddits anyway.
feralgraft@reddit
R/airbathing
JudgeWhoOverrules@reddit
What Liberty do you give up having your picture taken in public?
C21H27Cl3N2O3@reddit
Freedom of movement. It’s no different than if a black van were following you every time you left your house.
Rhomya@reddit
What business does the government have in tracking my movement without needing to obtain a warrant?
Jdawn82@reddit
It’s definitely a slippery slope sort of situation. All it takes is someone high up deciding they need to keep an eye on more and more actions.
Lugbor@reddit
Not having your every movement tracked is a pretty nice liberty. I can leave my phone at home and go for a walk without being followed, but if every street corner gets a camera, that gets a lot harder for people.
LtPowers@reddit
Franklin's quotation is "a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means."
-- Benjamin Wittes
https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
Astrazigniferi@reddit
Yes, being opposed to excessive surveillance and concerned with civil liberties is a very common opinion for many Americans. It’s one of the last real bipartisan issues where you can find strong supporters on both sides of the political divide, although they’ll often be for different reasons. America’s whole thing is valuing personal freedom over civic order.
Reduak@reddit
No, we have an independence streak that's at the core of our culture and both of those are seen as a deep violation of the inherent rights this country was founded on.
Premium333@reddit
Yeah and fairly strongly also.
TBH, this is an issue I would a large amount of the population are aligned on.
We do not trust our government very much. Mostly becuase of how we run it means about half the time, it doesn't represent your interests in the way you want it to.
GreasedUPDoggo@reddit
So it's a a bit of a mixed bag. We all complain about red light and speeding cameras, but in general communities support their implementation. There are also bad neighborhoods where we put police cameras and other tech that detects crime like 'ShotSpotter'.
We have all sorts of cameras up on private property, and law enforcement routinelt uses the footage with the property owners consent or a warrant.
But most of the US is safe and doesn't really require extra eyes.
scumbagstaceysEx@reddit
I feel like it’s the majority, not just a loud minority. One of the few things that unites all Americans is we don’t like our gubment to have too much police power over its own citizens. In fact, the surest way to get someone to be against something the government wants to do is for the government to say “it’s for safety”. That is a pretty universal red flag for us. Not a selling point.
ScrimshawPie@reddit
Look, I am opposed generally to cameras because 1. yes, the idea makes me uncomfortable and 2. VERY REALISTICALLY, NOT ONE kind of thing is going to be enforced. Police in my city can't get to active murders. They are 100% not sending anyone out for littering, dealing, or having a mental health crisis.
But the REAL problem is it's not the STATE. If it was state cameras, maybe we could vote some laws into effect, the data would be privet. But it's not these are PRIVATE companies recording and data of you, and doing who knows what with it in addition to providing it to whoever set up the contract.
Ok_Buy_9703@reddit
An armed society, is a polite society.
PlutoniumBoss@reddit
America disproves that adage.
Popular-Local8354@reddit
A minority of Americans own guns.
PlutoniumBoss@reddit
And it's the demographic that owns the most guns that seems to be the most impolite.
Popular-Local8354@reddit
My experience in retail has taught me otherwise.
PlutoniumBoss@reddit
My experience in retail has not.
Ok_Buy_9703@reddit
Just not enough people are armed to keep the rif raf in line. I every thug on a bus met 5 people pulling a gun on him, they wouldn't be thuggin very long.
pumpkin_antler@reddit
You can say all you want about being tough about servelence and crime and you're going to find evidence on both sides. There are European countries that have eliminated laws on personal drug use... What happened? More people went to get help for their drug use because it felt like less of a stigma. We've seen here that the war in drugs was just a scam to put black and brown people into jail and be able to legally have slaves.
The US as people has an interesting mix of puritanical laws but a vested interest in personal freedom.
But yes its pretty universal we don't like the government being up in our businesses.. And I'd personally prefer less businesses up in my business.
Ceorl_Lounge@reddit
Yes.
Find Nearby ALPRs | DeFlock
Sincerely hope they day never comes where we need to "aggressively tamper" with these, but plenty of folks are keeping track just in case.
overlord_cow@reddit
Lmfao I think the amount of people I know who would be ok with that would hire comfortably fit on one hand
EatFishKatie@reddit
In general there is a deep resentment and distrust in law enforcement in the US. The biggest issue with most surveillance in the US is it private owned and accessible to anyone. Want to stalk your ex and track their every move, there are no restrictions. Cops want to arrest immigrants and abortion asylum seekers, they have real-time access to everyone's movements. The data is openly being scrapped by companies to track individuals every movement. The question is why? And who are they selling this data to? With how quickly most people's existance is being threatened in the US these cameras might as well be an open spy network. They aren't being used to keep people safe. They are being used to oppress anyone who openly opposes the current administration.
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup
Sirhc978@reddit
A lot of Americans willingly opt into it unknowingly by slapping a Ring camera on their front door.
ashleid@reddit
1984
houdini31@reddit
We absolutely do not want public surveillance-the "benefits" aren't worth the invasion of privacy and invasion of rights.
ibeerianhamhock@reddit
Public surveillnace cameras on citizens? Yeah
Surveillance on public servants in the line of duty? No
Vivaciousseaturtle@reddit
In my state traffic cameras have been illegal. They’ve tried instituting them in high risk areas but it keeps getting shut down. A physical officer must see you commit the alleged offense
ClickClick_Boom@reddit
In my state there was a court ruling that speed cams were unconstitutional but the government was like "🤷♂️ we're still gonna have them because they generate revenue"
Fuck this state.
GurProfessional9534@reddit
The US _has_ vast surveillance camera coverage. It’s just not in the hands of the government. We don’t trust the government to do that.
Our surveillance network is in the hands of the people. It’s in every smartphone and ring camera, convenience store security camera, and private apartment security cam. To the extent we have public surveillance, for example police body cams, it’s to surveil the police and make sure they are not abusing their power, not to surveil the citizens.
RespectableBloke69@reddit
I oppose it.
Marscaleb@reddit
Conceptually I think I'd be fine with it in major population centers with terrible crime rates. Detroit, Chicago, NYC, LA, etc. I would appreciate it and feel safer if/when I travel there.
But for an average city in the US? No, not even close. I don't trust those local governments to not jump on everyone who is just passing through for every minor infraction just so they can extract some extra coin from all the tourists who can't afford to fight a court battle in some other state. And of course the locals don't know its going on so they don't complain about it to their leaders. This would just make the world a terrible place.
diplomystique@reddit
So you could ask random Redditors, who are not a particularly representative slice of America; or you could actually check the polls.
Pluralities say that it’s ok for the government to license plate cameras and facial recognition in public. Around 70% support cameras in specific contexts, like schools or monitoring large public events. Video and audio recording is much less popular, with fewer than 20% being ok with both of them.
But bear in mind that about one in three Americans say that, in any situation where security and privacy collide, privacy should win. I estimate that 100% of those Americans are on Reddit.
deterioratingflesh@reddit
Nobody wants public surveillance because it’s shitty and immoral lol
Angry_GorillaBS@reddit
I can't fathom anyone anywhere not opposing it.
Appropriate-Food1757@reddit
I am opposed but have basically resigned to the reality that it’s a thing.
DuelJ@reddit
I don't know how passionate the average folk is, but they're widely generally disliked.
Lokisworkshop@reddit
Yes because we do not want to be watched 24/7
Small_Dog_8699@reddit
Most people are passive cattle. But the ones who aren’t are the ones who are paying attention and work to improve the world.
texasrigger@reddit
I agree with the first sentence but not the second. Not being passive isn't the same thing as being correct or trying to improve the world. There are a ton of people who are "paying attention" but they arent really qualified to understand what they are paying attention to and their opinions are informed more by how they think it works (or feels like it should) rather than fully grasping the entire picture. Those people's actions range from improving things to misguidedly making things worse. If you know enough to know what you dont know, you are doing better than average.
No-Lunch4249@reddit
I think because of our history and cultural outlook, many if not most Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of a massive government-run surveillance state.
SevereAnimator5@reddit
There's been numerous false arrest using Flock cameras. Coupled with the goal of predicting if someone's "going" to commit a crime. It's scary.
Razoras@reddit
I would say most of my fellow Americans profess to be anti-surveillance but in practice are very pro-surveillance.
While we don't have government-level cameras everywhere, we are every bit as camera-covered at China, the UK, Japan, etc.
Dashcams, doorbell cameras, security cameras, traffic cameras, etc have all created a defacto surveillance society whether the typical American realizes it or not.
shammy_dammy@reddit
If you get the civil liberties concerns like you say, you'd already know the answer.
Current_Poster@reddit
I'd say opposing mass surveillance was a majority view.
HammeredDog@reddit
Asks the vocal minority if it's just the vocal minority...
NedThomas@reddit
I reject the assumption that streets in America are not largely clean, safe, and orderly.
HarlequinKOTF@reddit
Most people don't want them. Pur politicians aren't listening.
awakenDeepBlue@reddit
I didn't particularly care about surveillance cameras, but I certainly care about the inevitable abuse of power that will come from it.
In a perfect world, the surveillance network would be monitored by a perfectly neutral AI, who is then monitored by perfectly neutral IT personnel.
But since we live in an imperfect world, it's not possible to create a surveillance network that is not going to be abused.
vertin1@reddit
I’ve been to Japan Singapore and China
I’m actually in China typing this right now
Americans will not accept a surveillance state
71-lb@reddit
We need to handle bigger problems first . But as I come let's face ignorant hating bigoted texas, and went to Korea in the 90s...
Well 1st off it ain't the cameras , Korea hardly had any cameras. Its parents teaching kids to never litter.
But a lot folks who aint from the usa do not tend to notice the basic tendency in the usa :
If any got a camera , its purpose will be abused. If any body got software , it will be abused.
From the top down
If u rich white male , rape vandalize lie steal drive fast litter starve ur kids hit ur spouse- No punishment ,
If u a poor white female got to be ticketed.
Poor & any other skin pigment , even worse
Now add LGBTIA +
Or Atheist
Or democrat
Age discrimination Disability prejudicy
USA FROM THE TOP DOWN WILL ATTACK ITS OWN PEOPLE ON SCALE WHERE
ONLY RICH WHITE ABLE BODY XTIAN 20 TO 50 AGE HETEROSEXUAL PENIS ESCAPES CONSEQUENCES
AND EVERYBODY ELSE GETS FUCKED.
ITS NOT EUROPE OR ASIA OR AFRICA OR THE REST OF NORTH CENTRAL SOUTH AMERICA.
Totally different people. U can't grab what works elsewhere and just slap it here.
Marscaleb@reddit
This couldn't even be feasible in anywhere buy a slim minority of the nation.
It works in Singapore and China because they have practically no one living outside the over-crowded cities, so you could actually set up cameras all over the city and actually track people and crime. I imagine that you could pull that off in New York without too much hassle (not counting for budget costs and legal red tape.) But anywhere else? No, that's just not going to work.
Even if you went to another major city, like Houston or Cincinnati, and you set up cameras all over the there... How are you ever going to track someone down that you captured on the camera? Most people there don't actually live in the city, and they'll be gone in a few hours. You'd need a network that extends far beyond the city itself into all the suburbs, and that is in no way feasible. Just to be able to transfer the data for all the cameras, you'd need to triple the quality of all the data/communication lines. And all of this for what? To record someone putting graffiti on a wall, which they would easily not be caught if they just wore a mask, or even a hoodie and looked down the whole time?
Before you even get into whether or not people are opposed to being surveilled, you're going to hit massive opposition just for the costs and labor involved.
ComprehensiveCoat627@reddit
Remember we are the country that values our personal liberties so highly that we would rather children be gunned down in schools over limiting access to guns. Of course Americans are oposed to government surveillance where the benefits are things like cleanliness and order. If we don't value our children over liberties, why would we value cleanliness and order more?
DGlen@reddit
Everyone was against it when China started doing it. Our authoritarian apologists changed their tune recently.
SteelGemini@reddit
If it's like anything else, most us probably want those things used to control the behavior of other, lesser people who "need" strict enforcement. They never think ahead to it being used on themselves because they think they're the good ones and any mistake they make is incidental. They then get indignant when it is used against them.
nowhereman136@reddit
Most people don't like it. However, they either don't realize how pervasive it is or they don't care enough to make a fuss about it.
bh0@reddit
There are huge concerns / issues with AI and facial recognition that is more and more being actively shared between the camera systems, police, other entities, etc... You have no idea where the info is going, who's looking at it, what they are doing, and on and on. There are people being tossed into jail due to bogus facial recognition/AI crap happening already. It's just going to get worse.
YerekYeeter@reddit
You're missing the point that there are different societal norms and a strong belief in the collective benefit of following rules. Americans default is "How does this benefit me?"
Fun_Machine7346@reddit
Surveillance bad, freedom goooood. However I think that would be the case for any sane creature, human or not.
MilleryCosima@reddit
If more Americans were more aware of how much public surveillance is expanding, you'd see a lot more vocal opposition to it.
ComesInAnOldBox@reddit
Opinions on that are pretty diverse across the board. Most folks are okay with the occasional security camera, it's the idea of having their entire lives monitored that they aren't comfortable with. More than anything else, it's the potential for abuse that has most Americans squeamish. The government has been caught before keeping too close of an eye on some of its citizens (during the Iraq War protests they got caught running facial recognition on protestors, not to look for possible terrorists in the crowds but just to keep track of people from one protest to another).
Mediocre-Oil-5322@reddit
Skepticism about the government and it's activities is baked into our culture and system of government. Americans who trust the current administration tend to be deeply suspicious of the federal government in general under other circumstances, and those who would be more likely to trust the federal government under other circumstances are deeply distrustful of the current administration. And both groups tend to be distrustful of anything that falls under the heading "surveillance." As much as some Americans might admire the orderliness of places like Singapore and Japan, most would consider the legal or social restrictions present in those places to be too great a cost for that orderliness. And China, despite its reforms, is still seen by most Americans as a repressive state, so theirs is not an example that very many Americans are going to hold up as one worth following.
DMGlowen@reddit
I don't have a problem with surveillance cams.
I have a problem with someone outside of the government, seeing that data.
Unfortunately in the US, we have the Freedom of Information Act, which seems to allow anyone access to that data.
I believe the Freedom of Information Act is good for making the government more transparent, bad for individual privacy.
Background-Passion50@reddit
Hello. I was an embassy guard in Beijing for 16 months. Safe, orderly, and clean are not even remotely the way I would describe their streets. I once watched a homeless man expire on the security cameras outside our back gate and he laid their amongst the trash for a full day before his body was retrieved. Singapore slightly less so than China but, still not up to standard. Japan is however, very clean (3 months working at that embassy as well). Do not believe every video you see online. If able I urge people to visit these places and judge for themselves.
happyfaceowl@reddit
i think only a small minority would support that level of surveillance. not only is it not our culture but the exact opposite of what the “american spirit” is based upon.
GhostOfJamesStrang@reddit
I don't think you do.....
Eat--The--Rich--@reddit
What Americans support or oppose isn't really relevant to which laws get passed.
Dangerous-Variation@reddit
Listen, a lot of us read 1984 when we were in public school. Those of us that didn’t read that, read Brave New World. And when we got to college, we read Fight Club.
We’re not okay with authority around here. We have a healthy skepticism of it and we ask ourselves, if we give the government that information, what MIGHT they do with it? Not what they say they will do with it. We ask ourselves what the potential damage could be.
TV shows like Person of Interest come about because we do not trust the government to use those resources ONLY for what they say they will. So, yeah. We do oppose public surveillance.
Can you blame us? We never know who’s gonna be running the country for any longer than 4 years at a stretch.
Finnyfish@reddit
Americans have a deep regard for personal privacy, and most would be horrified to find they were being watched on the level that the UK, for example, keeps an eye on its inhabitants (innocent and guilty alike).
Most would consider that mass surveillance infringes on our rights to free association, free expression, and in some instances freedom from unreasonable searches. Equal protection under the law is also a factor -- surveillance tends to be quite racist in practice. And there's the presumption of innocence; cops aren't supposed to be collecting evidence when there's no valid reason to suspect a crime has been committed.
If, as is often said, younger people are less concerned about privacy than their elders, it will eventually show up in changes to the laws and law enforcement practices. But for now, I'd say most of us want to go about our business without being watched.
Silkies4life@reddit
I don’t trust them not to use it the way they say they will. They already started selling that info to ICE, even if I have nothing to fear, I don’t feel like they should be able to track me. It feels like borderline illegal search and seizure.
Ok_Jackfruit2612@reddit
Every store we walk into has surveillance. The parking lots. Grocery stores. Malls. The owners use the footage to turn into police. The police use it to prosecute people. People will say it's the owner's right. And it is. But it being their right doesn't change how it actually affects people. And people still shop there. They aren't boycotting over surveillance from private businesses even though that surveillance can be subpoenaed or voluntarily turned over.
Americans value freedom over everything and this is what they will tell you. The real world practice is something else.
I'm not totally opposed to CCTV but before I form an opinion, I would have a lot of questions and want to learn a lot more about it.
SkyPuppy561@reddit
I sure as shit do oppose those things
latelyimawake@reddit
The vast majority oppose it—this is something most Americans, even ones who disagree about other things, can come together on.
However, the vast majority are also busy with their lives, jobs, kids, day to day survival. It’s the vast minority who have the time/platform/wherewithal to be “vocal” as you say.
Jdawn82@reddit
Yeah not a fan of having my every movement surveilled. Feels like a police state.
GreenDavidA@reddit
Like most things, the plurality, if not the majority, seemingly don’t care one way or the other.
Traditional_Trust418@reddit
I don't want the police watching me
RedRedBettie@reddit
yes in my area they tried the cameras and people did not react to that well
vashtachordata@reddit
I am absolutely not okay with living in a surveillance state.
pinniped90@reddit
I think we just assume the surveillance is already there.
Many of us willing pay Amazon for surveillance equipment in our own homes.
z44212@reddit
Police have never had a tool they did not misuse against innocent people.
Never.
Never, ever.
Ok-Growth4613@reddit
No one wants flock cameras...
AustynCunningham@reddit
In my opinion it is a vocal minority and the majority doesn’t care.
The outrage for Flock Cameras in my area, with petitions and vandalism of them for “creating a surveillance state” is something I see on Reddit constantly, meanwhile many neighborhood councils and individuals are requesting the cameras be installed around their area as a deterrent to crime.
Also people phones are constantly tracking them, many people are either knowingly or unknowingly opted into Googles location tracking or through other apps/companies, so they are already sharing their data. Heck if you finance a car you most likely have a GPS tracker in your car, and the finance company probably sells your location data (they legally can in most cases).
Frankly I see constant posts and complaints online about public camera tracking, but have yet to meet anyone who is outspokenly against them, and personally I don’t really care, we’re not entitled to privacy in public, and anyone can be recorded in public..
malibuklw@reddit
I’m not comfortable with surveillance cameras everywhere because I don’t trust the people who have the data to keep it protected or to use it only for the stated reason.
When our data is breached we get a letter letting us know it happened months or years later. And maybe some extra credit monitoring. That’s pretty much it.
notarealperson319@reddit
Most oppose it, but the large majority don't realize how many Flock cameras and the like are already scattered across the country.
Sea_Breakfast828@reddit
I do not want a surveillance state.
atomfullerene@reddit
Have you seen the people running our country? The last thing I want is more cameras for them to watch us. If we really want to clean up this country we ought to be installing cameras all over the white house and congress
Adorable-East-2276@reddit
I like the Asian system better, which is part of why I migrated to Asia. Most people do not, I am in a very small minority on this in the US
Salarian_American@reddit
I think generally we don't trust our government and we certainly don't trust the corporations that are certainly going to be involved in whatever mass surveillance they do
IzzybearThebestdog@reddit
If you ask people most would be uncomfortable , although there is certainly a “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” mindset among some. But it’s more that people are generally unaware of what’s happening and once things get passed we don’t organize or protest. A law about cameras in new cars passed recently and most people don’t know about it.
feralgraft@reddit
I trust the government as far as I can spit it. Why would I trust them with large scale surveillance infrastructure, especially given their current tendencies toward facism?
AppropriateDark5189@reddit
I've visited several other countries and been through a lot of airports. The surveillance doesn't bother me, I'm not that interesting. I would prefer not to be monitored but I'm willing to sacrifice that for safety.
ButtToucherPhD@reddit
Yes, we are generally opposed to surveillance. It's a major part of why there is such an anti-AI Data Center sentiment.
Emotional-Loss-9852@reddit
If you ask them a broad question like do you oppose public surveillance they will say yes. If you ask them do they support automated cameras that catch people with felony warrants or alert police to gunshots they’ll say yes.
Basically in practice most people would likely support it but in theory they do not.
No_name_Johnson@reddit
Yes, I would say the majority of people oppose things like public surveillance, stricter civic laws, etc. For better or worse there's a strong individualist undercurrent to American society. Anything that is seen to infringe on an individuals privacy is viewed with skepticism at best.
severinusofnoricum@reddit
A whole lot of people dislike stop light cameras and other traffic related cameras but many of those people are okay with mass surveillance so long as they’re not the ones being surveilled.
Prestigious_Fig_9984@reddit
Owsom
UsurpistMonk@reddit
Generally people oppose it. Most don’t oppose it strongly enough to do something about it.