More than that really. If every stranger who sees you on the street can (or worse, automatically does) instantly share that they saw you to a giant database that can then be easily searched it changes the act of "seeing". Now you can be virtually followed at any time by anyone anywhere who can use the database.
No one can be drowned by a raindrop. A flood is another matter.
I'm not sure what the actual consequences of basic income would be, but at least this article references attempts at figuring out how such systems affect people. You're not bringing up any objections that aren't mentioned in the article.
And pointing to existing forms of welfare/social security misses the point entirely. Many who speak for basic income (including this article's author) argue that it's the heavy bureaucracy and stigma associated with such sollutions that cause people to be caught up in it.
> Many who speak for basic income (including this article's author) argue that it's the heavy bureaucracy and stigma associated with such sollutions that cause people to be caught up in it.
"Heavy bureaucracy" is a source of social cost, but neither it nor stigma are, as I see it, the real problem with means tested programs.
The real problem with means-tested programs is the perverse incentives of means-testing, which directly serve to inhibit people from progressing up the economic ladder by creating penalties for outside income (when, as is often the case, the programs have inadequate benefits to start with, this often forces people into under-the-table work just to survive, which has negative cultural effects as it erodes cultural acceptance of the rule of law.)
Pretty cool. A shame it shares a name with this, though: http://dronestagram.tumblr.com
(Which, imo, is a more interesting, but completely different idea)
looking -> recording -> sharing
These are all different things and our behaviour will and should change at each step.