[least]

With this logic, you could justify embedding cameras in every private space of someone’s home. The feed could be sent to a server running an automatic algorithm that flags potential crimes. If something suspicious appears, authorities would be alerted and an independent review would determine whether a crime occurred.

I have no doubt in my mind if we did that it would certainly be a huge win for law enforcement, detecting crimes and gathering evidence to help catch criminals. Why stop there, though? Why not require everyone live in glass apartments like in the novel We?

These aren't big leaps from what you're proposing. You are advocating for mass surveillance with the assumption that these systems won't be abused despite countless examples of surveillance being misused by those in power.

Comparing scanning all of someone's digital files to smoke detectors is absurd.

[notepad0x90]

You have a good point, but is a phone equal to your private home, or is it similar to a car (where you are required to have transparent glass windows). Is it a right or a privilege?

But to challenge your argument further, if the majority are fine with having cameras in their homes that don't transmit unless a crime is detected, isn't that just democracy?

What's getting lost in this discussion might be the fact that the majority of people don't care that much about privacy, especially when heinous crimes are involved. Furthermore, the equivalent would be house builders installing cameras in homes, not home owners being required to install one. But a reasonable compromise might be scanning content being transmitted instead of stored?

[least]

> You have a good point, but is a phone equal to your private home, or is it similar to a car (where you are required to have transparent glass windows). Is it a right or a privilege?

We regulate the operation of motor vehicles because they pose an immediate safety risk. As in, the use of one could reasonably result in injury or death. A phone is not something you could reasonably expect to be used to create immediate harm (injury, death) and you wouldn't regulate one as such. That's not to say that aspects of it can't be regulated, but the fact that it can be a tool used to generate harm does not make it itself particularly dangerous.

> But to challenge your argument further, if the majority are fine with having cameras in their homes that don't transmit unless a crime is detected, isn't that just democracy?

Yes, which is why we avoid direct democracy pretty much everywhere in the world. But rights aren't something that can be taken away by a vote. Only protections against a government violating your rights can. If you could vote away your rights then pretty much every authoritarian government would be wholly justified in their abusive actions.

> What's getting lost in this discussion might be the fact that the majority of people don't care that much about privacy, especially when heinous crimes are involved. Furthermore, the equivalent would be house builders installing cameras in homes, not home owners being required to install one. But a reasonable compromise might be scanning content being transmitted instead of stored?

Most people don't care about a lot of things. That's another reason why we don't have most people writing legislation. There are tons of things I have extremely limited knowledge about that someone else feels very strongly about and vice versa. The majority of people feeling apathetic towards something isn't an indicator that the majority is correct.