I'd go the other way -- is there any remote hope of stopping this from spreading, regardless of abuses? History has shown that on a long enough time line this will be abused. Under what authority do they operate these systems? Since when has persistent surveillance become permissible?
I feel like I'm going to end up a minority here, but this is not a good thing.
I would paraphrase it as, "unregulated indiscriminate use of surveillance" is not a good thing. And I'd agree, as did the authors of the Bill of Rights.
Like unwarranted multi-target wiretaps, surveillance of the general public without oversight is the real threat. One option is to demand that all surveillance be closely regulated (ideally by open courts), and police departments must get authorization before buying/renting any new ISR tech.
But until we elect more courageous pols who care more for their oath to uphold the Constitution than protecting their job with knee-jerk militarized responses that satisfy hysterical public backlash to crime, indiscriminate surveillance will only get lazier, more expensive, and more destructive to everyone who isn't dressed in black.
Hmm.. the complementary and problematic fact here is that technology has also shown that on a long enough timeline this will spread.
Seems like the only way to halt the spread would be to criminalize it. But since the justice system has repeatedly upheld specific cases of aerial surveillance, that has a good likelihood of becoming generalized without some executive or congressional action? Would anyone step up?
The potential of abusive use of technology is there for every single new technology, every single one. The question is how to best control it with somebody we can trust, and the use case is morally OK.
I feel like I'm going to end up a minority here, but this is not a good thing.