The moral arguments against it are profound: put simply human liberty and constant mass surveillance are mutually incompatible.
There is a deep and rich body of literature, philosophy, research, and direct human experience to back this up. I am truly sorry that you appear to be completely unfamiliar with any of it. If you have a sincere interest in the subject, you can start with the most widely recognized point of reference: George Orwell's "1984".
Also, regarding celebrities and their suffering at the hands of paparazzi. This is something of a special case, and hardly a situation that reflects the broad sweep of common law. But even here, there's recognition that something really awful and abusive is going on. California has already taken steps to curb the worst of it in ways that conform with existing laws and constitutional protections for the press. Meanwhile, celebrities themselves have taken to hiring PI's, who document the frequently-illegal abuses they're subjected to, and turning over their findings to the police.
1984 is a work of fiction and has no bearable application on the world of today, and furthermore there is no philosophical literature dealing with being monitored while in PUBLIC. This isn't about privacy when you're in a place no one else is, this is about how incredibly naive it is to think when you're in public, no one's allowed to look at you.
Do not transform this into a privacy debate, because I'm not saying you don't deserve privacy. Don't ruin this discussion by getting all fanatical on me...
"this is about how incredibly naive it is to think when you're in public, no one's allowed to look at you."
That is...not even remotely close to what I, or anyone else on this thread has said. This was about the malign effects relentless surveillance and stalking, not people glancing in your direction as you walk down the street. And you can't possibly be serious when you say "there is no philosophical literature dealing with being monitored while in PUBLIC." That is just so unbelievably wrong.
I realize I shouldn't get upset about stupid online comments, but every now and then you encounter one that is so unfathomably ignorant that your jaw just drops. And you, sir, have left me flabbergasted.
This is easy to prove. Show me which philosopher tackled mass public surveillance.
And it is exactly what you and everyone else in this thread has said. A surveillance program designed to collect information on you that's already public is not legally or morally wrong. Besides, you already agreed to it! When you GET a license plate, you're EXPLICITLY agreeing that you can be tracked. That's the whole damned point of the license plate.
You don't have a right to privacy while in public, and that extends to recording your movements in public. Get over it, because that's how it will be forever.
I have no interest in "proving" anything to anyone brainless enough enough to make sweeping assertions that categorically deny the very existence of something - without even spending the 30-40 seconds on Google needed to verify the truth of what he's saying. I mean, that's some weapons-grade stupidity right there.
But if you're truly interested in the subject, and are willing to do a very very small amount of work to educate yourself, you can try to guess who I'm thinking of. I'll let you know if you get it right. Bonus points for identifying one key concept this person popularized. It's one that routinely comes up in the conversations about surveillance and social control that are happening all over the place these days, so unless your ignorance is absolute, you should recognize it when you see it.
What I can can see is that you're an relentlessly dishonest person with no real interest in learning more about the world, making further conversation pointless.
Specifically, I've noticed that each time the error of what you've written is pointed out, you become evasive, cherry picking one part of the criticism for further distortion while ignoring the bits you can't respond to, or simply moving goal posts when that's more convenient. At no point have you taken responsibility for your statements, or acknowledged the faults in what you've said, even when they've been made plain for all to see. Given your low karma on this site, I suspect I'm not the only one who objects to your basic intellectual dishonesty.
Indeed, Harry Frankfurt has written an excellent essay about people like you. It's called "On Bullshit" and you can read it, in full, here:
His central point is that liars, while obviously dishonest, still maintain respect for the basic authority of the truth, if for no other reason than to do a better job concealing it. The bullshitter, on the other hand, has no regard for the quality of what he says, of even the accepted meaning of the words he uses. His only concern is personal advantage, truth be damned. For this reason, Frankfurt concludes that the bullshitter is a greater enemy of the truth than the liar.
There is a deep and rich body of literature, philosophy, research, and direct human experience to back this up. I am truly sorry that you appear to be completely unfamiliar with any of it. If you have a sincere interest in the subject, you can start with the most widely recognized point of reference: George Orwell's "1984".
Also, regarding celebrities and their suffering at the hands of paparazzi. This is something of a special case, and hardly a situation that reflects the broad sweep of common law. But even here, there's recognition that something really awful and abusive is going on. California has already taken steps to curb the worst of it in ways that conform with existing laws and constitutional protections for the press. Meanwhile, celebrities themselves have taken to hiring PI's, who document the frequently-illegal abuses they're subjected to, and turning over their findings to the police.