"The neighborhood’s camera opponents argued that the systems were a pointless, Orwellian annoyance they didn’t want greeting them every time they drove home."

"To them, the cameras felt like another step toward mass suburban paranoia, where every once-forgettable slight is now recorded by Ring doorbell cameras, shared on Facebook and discussed endlessly on Nextdoor. But the cameras’ supporters said... [g]oing soft on crime could put their families at risk... and no one on public roads should expect privacy, anyway.... 'You would think we were living in a war zone,' said [Michele] Lawrence, 55. 'We have neighbors who have fortressed their houses in Ring cameras, and it’s gotten them nowhere — and nothing, except this false sense of panic. It creeps me out.'... Tensions boiled over at community meetings, said [David Paul] Appell, who recalled the head of the pro-camera faction screaming that an opponent was 'chusma' — Cuban Spanish for 'low class.' ... Camera supporters griped that opponents were naive, penny-pinching Luddites.... And the critics griped that they were being transformed into a surveillance state thanks largely to one board member notorious for repeatedly — and, to them, unnecessarily — calling the police."

From "License plate scanners were supposed to bring peace of mind. Instead they tore the neighborhood apart/A battle among homeowners in the Colorado mountains shows how a new generation of surveillance technology is reshaping American neighborhoods" (WaPo).

It's hard to know which side is right. Once lots of people — making their own individual decision — have put in Ring doorbells, you're arguing for privacy that's already gone, and it's mostly about money. The article says the license-plate-scanning cameras cost $2,500 a year. What's each person's share of that and how does that loss compare to what you're losing through crime? You're losing peace of mind through crime, even if no one steals anything from your car. But if we're talking about the value of your emotional state, we need to put a dollar amount on the feeling that you've got less privacy, even if your privacy was already shot to hell.

I learned a new word, "chusma." From the Urban Dictionary:

Originates from Cuban Spanish. Refers to a "lowlife", a cheazy (cheap & sleazy) person, someone with little or no class who often dresses the part, as well - using big, gaudy, overly showy clothing & accessories. 

"Mira a ese reloj chillon que lleva Cuco. Y mira como habla con boca grande y con tanta vulgaridad. Que gente mas chusma!" 

"Look at that big, gaudy watch Coco wears. And look at how he goes around talking all big and with such vulgarity. What a lowlife!"

ADDED: I learned another new word, "cheazy." I was just about to add a "[sic]" after it, thinking they'd meant "cheesy," but then I saw the parenthetical. It's a portmanteau of "cheap & sleazy." Okay. But it's hard to believe that wasn't just hearing "cheesy" and imagining the spelling. It gives me a flashback to the time I lost the 8th-grade spelling bee when I pictured the ostrich in the word "ostracize."