That's the beauty of widespread surveillance and easy bulk storage - there's no reason to give any of the surveilled parties the power to control the data. Camera records the footage and sends it to a centralized storage facility, where it is automatically deleted after 5 years or some other length of time. As long as there's enough storage space for the relevant time frame's worth of footage, there's no reason any person needs to be able to delete it. If it's on a server hundreds of miles away what can some petty bureaucrat do even if they wanted to?
I mean, it's a nice thought, but it does not change the situation I described. The persons with the power of authority determine whether or not the surveillance data can be accessed.
In the example I mentioned where the only footage of violence against me by persons is controlled by the persons themselves, what does it matter if it gets sent to S3 with immutability for 10 years? I still can't get that data if they don't want me to, in some countries the legal discovery process might _say_ all parties in a legal dispute must comply with the discovery process, but if one of the parties states they simply don't have the data, the courts can't do much of anything in such cases.
(The following statement is not to decry encryption, but more just to show that "deletion" is just an example there are many ways to "lose" such surveillance)
What if instead of deleting, we said "could not accesses, whoopsiekittens"? Let's say they do send the data to a centralized storage center, and naturally, they're encrypting all the data they send as per best practices? What exactly would I or anyone in my situation be able to do if the company "lost" the encryption key? Or they retrieve the data, muck a bit with the file to make it unreadable, and then just say "welp, guess just bad luck here"?
Unless it's _all open and all accessible_, it just means that those with the surveillance data have the power to use it however they want. Their excuses may be disprovable over time, but how long do you think most reasonable people would believe me if I tried to convince them that every excuse created was an intentional deception? How could I even prove it in most cases?
I am not advocating for non-stop surveillance and full open access to that surveillance to be clear; I have not thought what a system like that would look like and I am not able to say how it could work "for everyone", nor do I think it really could.
That's not the point, the point is instead that no matter how it's stored, unless everyone has equal access to it, it's still is surveillance that only those who control the surveillance data can use, regardless of what they decide to use it for. Body Cams for police in the US are a perfect example of this -- theoretically, they're for the public to use and for accountability with police, but since the police control the body cam footage and even get to decide that they don't _need_ the body cams at times, it's effectively surveillance that works for them when they want it to, and can be hidden when it works against them.
> I mean, it's a nice thought, but it does not change the situation I described. The persons with the power of authority determine whether or not the surveillance data can be accessed.
That is why you (and all the kids) wear a 360 degree camera connected to a mobile network that is backing up to a remote site you control.
Just like you want your own dashcam in the car to have the option to show your side in the event of a collision.
Or you start recording on your phone once you get pulled over by the cops.
A late reply you'll probably never see, but while in theory that works, keep in mind that (at least for US Court systems), there is an evidentiary process that must be satisfied before any of that will be considered. The police have repeatedly been documented outright beating and murdering people with dozens of witnesses and even their own body camera footage -- very few have been punished in a meaningful way.
None of what you mentioned really changes anything about my statement -- if the court date for my arrest where I was brutally beaten by officers for no reason is 30 days out, it doesn't matter that I got a video on my iPhone and uploaded it to whatever social media -- I'm still in jail, I still got the crap beat out of me, it's unclear if the video will even be accepted as evidence, the police video footage will also be considered as will their testimony.
Again, it's not about the actual video files, its about the concept of what surveillance can do, who actually is empowered by it, and who is surveilling who; the fact that there are continued policy brutality/abuse incidents despite the ever-present surveillance from all things is pretty supportive of what I'm intending to convey; they are surveilled for sure, but because they have the power/are protected by those who control the surveillance, they act with impunity because they _know that the surveillance works for them_; that is the point, not that you _can_ surveil someone if you want.
