I am leery of the surveillance state, which disturbingly has me in agreement with Foucault. (As one scholar stated, critical theory is a useful lens to critique society, but unfortunately, it always demands an ocular transplant.) Yet, if the data shows crime goes down because of the notion that one might get caught, well, that overrides my concern. I want small shopkeepers, who do not have businesses behind gated communities or make a living in the digital space, to flourish. But the goal - the overall goal - should be the restoration of communities where high trust prevails. Eons ago, an Israeli friend said she didn't feel safe in our grocery stores because there was no armed security. I told her I wouldn't feel safe in a society that needed such security. And voila, here we are.
As a side note, a few years ago, I went to buy party trinkets in LAs Chinatown. The petite woman apologized for having many wares behind the counter. We chatted for a bit. I learned that men with backpacks had been dropped off in the area. So not only did the woman have to contend with the aftermath of officials taking a knee to Neo-Marxists where criminals were the oppressed class, but also of officials dropping men off in her area. It was so awful to consider a woman who surely spent every penny she had to come to the US with promises of a better life, was handed spoiled fruit.
Thanks for your note Kerry. A surveillance state doesn't have rule of law. If you follow me, you'll know I am a big rule-of-law equal-treatment-under-the-law person.
We all would like to live in a Japan. But the alternative if we ban Flock Safety is actually Brazil, where only the wealthy have safety behind cloistered gates. Not a world I want to live in. https://garryslist.org/posts/america-s-dirty-secret-safety-is-a-luxury-good
2 comments
Discussion is for vetted members. Apply to join or log in.
I am leery of the surveillance state, which disturbingly has me in agreement with Foucault. (As one scholar stated, critical theory is a useful lens to critique society, but unfortunately, it always demands an ocular transplant.) Yet, if the data shows crime goes down because of the notion that one might get caught, well, that overrides my concern. I want small shopkeepers, who do not have businesses behind gated communities or make a living in the digital space, to flourish. But the goal - the overall goal - should be the restoration of communities where high trust prevails. Eons ago, an Israeli friend said she didn't feel safe in our grocery stores because there was no armed security. I told her I wouldn't feel safe in a society that needed such security. And voila, here we are.
As a side note, a few years ago, I went to buy party trinkets in LAs Chinatown. The petite woman apologized for having many wares behind the counter. We chatted for a bit. I learned that men with backpacks had been dropped off in the area. So not only did the woman have to contend with the aftermath of officials taking a knee to Neo-Marxists where criminals were the oppressed class, but also of officials dropping men off in her area. It was so awful to consider a woman who surely spent every penny she had to come to the US with promises of a better life, was handed spoiled fruit.
Thanks for your note Kerry. A surveillance state doesn't have rule of law. If you follow me, you'll know I am a big rule-of-law equal-treatment-under-the-law person.
We all would like to live in a Japan. But the alternative if we ban Flock Safety is actually Brazil, where only the wealthy have safety behind cloistered gates. Not a world I want to live in. https://garryslist.org/posts/america-s-dirty-secret-safety-is-a-luxury-good