Quote from: HmmMAA on Today at 05:50:42 AM

We see that today in the bitcoin community , which was one of the brightest communities years back but it has become a pack of laser eyed maxis with no understanding of the philosophy behind the technology that they only interested to pump their bags and buy lambos .

I fail to see the link between this and your assertion that the state should be allowed to monitor everything. Even if bitcoin didn't exist, my stance on privacy would be the same. Indeed, my stance on privacy was the same before bitcoin.

Quote from: HmmMAA on Today at 05:50:42 AM

You contradict yourself , seems that you do not have a settled opinion .

My quote that you shared was referring specifically to this case, where potentially innocent people are being convicted of laundering money based on unreliable and probably downright false "evidence", which is being shielded from any independent verification. The government know this, but they don't care.

Quote from: HmmMAA on Today at 05:50:42 AM

For once more , crimes are not only terrorist attacks (you still didn't answer if you think that boston marathon bombers would continue if they weren't identified ) . Rapes , burglaries , killings , traffic accidents and much much more have been solved due to camera surveillance , private or not .

And I'll point out again that the Boston marathon bombers were not identified due to mass surveillance, but due to private citizens. If individuals or businesses want to use cameras on their private property, that is their right. The government does not have the right to record all people in all public places. And as I linked to above, the evidence shows that mass surveillance does not prevent any crimes.

Quote from: HmmMAA on Today at 05:50:42 AM

So i'll ask : Is camera surveillance ( without a label like private or state ) needed ?

No. They do not prevent crimes, and the downside far outweighs any theoretical security benefit.