Earlier quoted context omitted.
> strict legal framework for its implementation And that might turn this technology into something that only big company can afford, artificially created a pro-monopoly environment. The problem is complex.
When did we decide that this should have a low barrier to entry. Is there any reason to think increased competition between surveillance providers will lead to more ethical surveillance? This is not a market problem at all, I don't see why you'd use market-brain constructs like monopoly to engage with it. One provider or thousands, the problem is the social dynamics and the power structures, not a product-consumer re…
That's not the argument I took away from that. Poster includes a summation, "it's complex" and is noting that simply adding regulation that only increases costs of compliance may just enable the formation of a tent seeking monopoly and does not necessarily result in a better outcome for citizens. The poster could advocate for a ban (or not advocate for anything) rather than deregulation as implied.