Critics say increased push to control online activities is to curb criticism of the Pakistani military
  • Blender Dumbass@lm.madiator.cloudEnglish
    1·
    8 hours ago

    how and when you know it’s a necessity

    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.

    • ᥫ᭡ 𐑖ミꪜᴵ𝔦 ᥫ᭡@feddit.orgEnglish
      2·
      5 hours ago

      Oh, Are you the same Blender Dumbass 2.0 ?

      And only if surveillance actually stops all the crime ( which it doesn’t )

      When mass surveillance works, you lose your rights, and when it doesn’t work as intended ( which as the government says to protect you from terrorists ), it gets things wrong and it can be too damaging, like when Google flagged a man who sent his child’s photos to a doctor, or when Facial recognition system gets the wrong person, or when a bank algorithm locks someone of their own account due to suspicious activity… etc

      So we’re damned when it works and we’re damned when it doesn’t.

      Edit: how can I do the math? Do you have any links…