First - you've misused the term 'technocracy' is. A 'technocracy' is not government based on technology - it's a government run by 'elite experts'.

Second - "We are not willing to give up liberties regardless of the benefits of the technology."

This makes no sense. It's like a line from a Rambo film. Communities trade liberties for benefits all the time.

Suppose police could clear 100% of murder crimes if we all consented to having our fingerprints taken. We we then do that? Probably. So long as there were no other ill effects.

This arbitrary notion of 'freedom' completely abnegates the fact that people live in communities with other people. Everything is a tradeoff. Absolutely everything.

Go ahead and use your chainsaw at 1 am in the city and see how 'free' you are to do such a simple thing as trim a hedge when you please. Or do it naked in the front yard.

Second - both these comments have shades of fear of the unknown.

This is the same kind of uproar people had about 'finger prints', 'DNA' and possibly 'seat belts'.

Both DNA and fingerprinting have been used expansively and widely for law enforcement, we generally accept their use, and are better to understand the parameters of them.

Using AI on a case by case basis in fact - is considerably less invasive.

Your fingerprint and DNA are semi-private bits of information.

You face is de-facto public.

Using 'AI' is no more 'technological' than any thing else, frankly, the term 'AI' is misleading because there is nothing special about it.

We could very well frame it as 'database search'.

---> The police took video footage from the crime scene and identified three possible suspects to the database one of the assailants was found to have the gun used to commit the crime.

It's ridiculous to assert there's something wrong here, let alone some kind of fundamentally new way of policing.

As for 'arbitrary surveillance' - that's another thing entirely. We don't have camera speed traps in a lot of places, that's fine, that's one application of technology.

I suggest we don't need broad surveillance either, but that has little to do with AI.

Crime is a real thing, cases unsolved and criminals unpunished definitely represent 'injustice' and so we need to use the tools we have to make the world a better place.

>Or do it naked in the front yard.

Let's take this simple one as example of stupid laws that suppose "to make world a better place "

Can you justify rationally and logically why naked person in the front yard is a problem? I mean, we have born this way aren't we? And yet having such biases you advocating for technology amplifier to enforce laws??

And you think you are making the world a better place ?

If you ready to prosecute someone for being naked, which means actually simply being himself and not sharing your views about nakedness, I prefer that you would be prohibited to have access from any surveillance completely.

>We could very well frame it as 'database search'.

And in that case I do not wish you to have any access to any database what so ever , and the 'data base' itself should be destroyed. Because 'AI' is a different level of magnitude in surveillance, because one thing is when you go some people notice you while some don't and another when something watching your every step. This by itself is intimidating. People would not feel free and relaxed they would fake it or smash the cameras at some point.

We already have too much surveillance to the level it's annoying to go outside. I do not feel comfortable any more. I do not like somebody watching me with AI precision. I was questioned by police just for taking the walk not in a 'proper' hours and all I wanted is just to take the air and think about deep topics without interruption. The world is already going crazy with too much control and some people seems do not realise that at all.