I would focus less on share of surveillance and more on getting specific court approval when using it. Something like a judge who approves any request to track or find a car.
The major fallacies in your argument are these: (1) the best arguments are about what this will look like in the future. Once we have too many of these, it will be very hard to get rid of them, especially considering the revenue they will inevitably raise; (2) your offhand dismissal of the concern of misuse fails to take into account the inevitable (yes, inevitable) INTENTIONAL misuse of the technology. Not the rogue cop but the systematic mission creep that infects all government power; (3) the risk-benefit ratio. How much crime prevention (as opposed to revenue generation from minor infractions) do we get, and at what cost? I find it hard to believe these cameras will ever prevent much crime without being ubiquitous. It is a proper concern, and more a value judgment than a quantitative analysis, to ask whether we want to live in a society that uses a great deal of surveillance to get a small reduction in crime.
Some people feel that the government has a right to know where every gun in the country is. Of course, there's a Right to Keep and Bear Arms which the government has to honor, so why would anyone object? The answer is that we know the government is always tempted (and inclined) to overreach its constitutional boundaries whenever it thinks it can get away with it. People who cherish the right to keep and bear arms remember the Holocaust. If the government can, it will. There's good reason not to make it too easy for them. Today's Americans are used to being nursed and cribbed from cradle to grave. In another era we were a different kind of people.
I would focus less on share of surveillance and more on getting specific court approval when using it. Something like a judge who approves any request to track or find a car.
The major fallacies in your argument are these: (1) the best arguments are about what this will look like in the future. Once we have too many of these, it will be very hard to get rid of them, especially considering the revenue they will inevitably raise; (2) your offhand dismissal of the concern of misuse fails to take into account the inevitable (yes, inevitable) INTENTIONAL misuse of the technology. Not the rogue cop but the systematic mission creep that infects all government power; (3) the risk-benefit ratio. How much crime prevention (as opposed to revenue generation from minor infractions) do we get, and at what cost? I find it hard to believe these cameras will ever prevent much crime without being ubiquitous. It is a proper concern, and more a value judgment than a quantitative analysis, to ask whether we want to live in a society that uses a great deal of surveillance to get a small reduction in crime.
Some people feel that the government has a right to know where every gun in the country is. Of course, there's a Right to Keep and Bear Arms which the government has to honor, so why would anyone object? The answer is that we know the government is always tempted (and inclined) to overreach its constitutional boundaries whenever it thinks it can get away with it. People who cherish the right to keep and bear arms remember the Holocaust. If the government can, it will. There's good reason not to make it too easy for them. Today's Americans are used to being nursed and cribbed from cradle to grave. In another era we were a different kind of people.