> Socially, constant monitoring creates a chilling effect on free behavior in public spaces, undermining individual liberty.
I was skeptical from the first sentence, but I stopped here.
This "chilling effect" is a favorite of privacy advocates, but it's purely a hypothetical. I have asked for and received no evidence of its practical effect in the real world, and can find plenty of evidence to the contrary.
New York City, for example, is one of the most highly-surveilled cities in the US, and yet turnout for things like protests is seemingly unaffected.
This is one of the centerpieces of your entire argument, yet is literally taken on faith.
I am! If the rest of your post is predicated on an unsupported point, it means it's unsupported, by definition. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence[1].
I agree that the hypothetical "chilling effect", as presented, is plausible and reasonable, but it lacks evidence. As such, I saved myself the effort of reading what might be a plausible argument until such time as it becomes supported by evidence.
I went back and read it, and you supported it with more hypotheticals, not evidence. So congratulations, you made me waste a couple minutes of my life! But this just tells me I once again made the right judgement call in not reading it the first time, and doesn't really help further your cause, or convince me I'm mistaken in this regard.
I was skeptical from the first sentence, but I stopped here.
This "chilling effect" is a favorite of privacy advocates, but it's purely a hypothetical. I have asked for and received no evidence of its practical effect in the real world, and can find plenty of evidence to the contrary.
New York City, for example, is one of the most highly-surveilled cities in the US, and yet turnout for things like protests is seemingly unaffected.
This is one of the centerpieces of your entire argument, yet is literally taken on faith.