4 ms·

An insinuation of this kind of tech is that if you aren't carrying a phone, you aren't safe. I'm seeing in the comments that the level of trust in companies is

An insinuation of this kind of tech is that if you aren't carrying a phone, you aren't safe. I'm seeing in the comments that the level of trust in companies is higher than the trust in your government. Both very sad things.

witty_username 10y ago
Companies are more directly accountable through $$$. Government is only accountable indirectly through elections; and you can win those with 51% of the vote [0]; the other 49% could completely disagree. [0] With the Electoral College, you don't even need a majority of the popular vote.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Many US elections, emphatically including those of Presidential electors, are done by plurality rule, so you don't need a majority to start with -- which is floor(votes×50%)+1, not 51%. With the structure of the EC, you can, therefore, win with a minority of votes in states with a minority of the population.
- nicktelford 10y ago
  In the UK, our current Conservative government "won" a majority (and hence control of the government) with only 35% of the popular vote. It's the smallest mandate a UK government has had in modern history.
- jonathansizz 10y ago
  > Companies are more directly accountable through $$$ What's direct about that? Companies are directly accountable to their shareholders, accountable to the general population via the government, and very indirectly accountable to their customers.
twr 10y ago
> I'm seeing in the comments that the level of trust in companies is higher than the trust in your government. Maybe that's occasionally deserved. I'm probably more paranoid about surveillance than you are. I wrote positively about this app anyway. The average commenter here is, more than likely, like me, not really in the target demographic for this app. I'm male, reasonably strong, and capable of defending myself. I don't worry when I leave the house. Sometimes my female friend, who is passionate about bicycling, tells me about her experiences on the nearby bike trail. Where, every day, she passes by dozens of loitering homeless individuals. Where, some time ago, a woman was dragged off her bike and had her face shattered. Where multiple women have been kidnapped. She expresses fear, but loves her sport enough to overcome it. She rides on a multi-thousand dollar custom-made road bike that's surely appealing for someone desperate enough. Who am I to tell her that her fears are overwrought? My physical safety isn't at stake. For people like her, I think this app is worth consideration. For people like me, I never wanted it.
- teddyh 10y ago
  How, exactly, would this app help your friend? Please describe the precise scenario.
  - twr 10y ago
    Sure. She's dragged off the trail. Her husband notices and notifies the police. She halts during a physical confrontation. Her friend calls to check up on her, and calls the police when she can't be reached. She crashes and becomes incapacitated. Someone checks her location after she fails to meet up. In reality, sports enthusiasts already use expensive tools for this. But the point of my comment wasn't about my affluent friend. It was about similar disadvantaged people facing actual dangers. Nerds complaining about privacy, while the only threat they face is increased cholesterol levels, just seems so trite. Awareness is good. Zealotry isn't.
    - teddyh 10y ago
      > She's dragged off the trail. Her husband notices and notifies the police. How would he notice unless he was actively watching? And what constitutes “off” the trail, anyway? If she strays off the trail for whatever reason, would she have to remember that her husband (or anyone else) might be watching and call the police to intrude on what might be a situation not amenable to improvement by armed personnel? > She halts during a physical confrontation. Her friend calls to check up on her, and calls the police when she can't be reached. How would the police help after a confrontation already has taken place? How fast is the police, really? > She crashes and becomes incapacitated. Someone checks her location after she fails to meet up. All right, in this case it would actually help. But this does not mean that she should have this capability turned on all the time, 24/7; only while she is doing a physically dangerous activity. Like going hiking – it’s normal to leave word of your planned route, in case of emergency. But not all the time. Your “nerds” comment is insulting and demeaning.
      - twr 10y ago
        > How would he notice unless he was actively watching? And what constitutes “off” the trail, anyway? If she strays off the trail for whatever reason, would she have to remember that her husband (or anyone else) might be watching and call the police to intrude on what might be a situation not amenable to improvement by armed personnel? Nearby here, recently, a woman was ambushed and taken off into the woods, and has since vanished. Supposing hypothetically that her hypothetical tracking beacon was emitting several hundred meters off into the unexplored woods, maybe someone would have noticed. Hypothetically. Sorry. It's uncommon for bicyclers to go off course. Bikes don't navigate well through trees. And no one wants to leave their valuable possession behind. And I was being terse before. Normally there would be some attempted contact beforehand. > How would the police help after a confrontation already has taken place? How fast is the police, really? In a kidnapping or injury scenario, time is of importance. Alerting the authorities (or anyone nearby, really) can save a life. If first responders wait additional hours because they were alerted too late, that person may die. People who travel tell people when they expect to return. If they leave on a three-hour trip, and experience catastrophe thirty minutes in, it may be 2.5 to 5+ hours before someone makes an emergency call. > All right, in this case it would actually help. But this does not mean that she should have this capability turned on all the time, 24/7; only while she is doing a physically dangerous activity. Like going hiking – it’s normal to leave word of your planned route, in case of emergency. But not all the time. Sure. I never suggested around-the-clock monitoring. She -- and her bicycling friends -- have been carrying tracking equipment for years. They plot their courses and compete on sprint times. So they are totally used to surveillance. It took me by surprise that so many HNers found the concept anathema. > Your “nerds” comment is insulting and demeaning. I guess. It was mostly tongue-in-cheek. I'm one of them. Sorry for the poor language. It was unwarranted.
mikecb 10y ago
On your second point, this is a very interesting distinction between American and European views of privacy that I've noticed a lot here on HN. I'm curious about the source of European skepticism, but from my own perspective, America has always had a skepticism of government powerfully built into our Constitution, and you can freely choose to associate or disassociate with a business at your leisure; not so with a government. I would really enjoy hearing the other perspective.

witty_username 10y ago

Companies are more directly accountable through $$$. Government is only accountable indirectly through elections; and you can win those with 51% of the vote [0]; the other 49% could completely disagree. [0] With the Electoral College, you don't even need a majority of the popular vote.

dragonwriter 10y ago
Many US elections, emphatically including those of Presidential electors, are done by plurality rule, so you don't need a majority to start with -- which is floor(votes×50%)+1, not 51%. With the structure of the EC, you can, therefore, win with a minority of votes in states with a minority of the population.
nicktelford 10y ago
In the UK, our current Conservative government "won" a majority (and hence control of the government) with only 35% of the popular vote. It's the smallest mandate a UK government has had in modern history.
jonathansizz 10y ago
> Companies are more directly accountable through $$$ What's direct about that? Companies are directly accountable to their shareholders, accountable to the general population via the government, and very indirectly accountable to their customers.

twr 10y ago

> I'm seeing in the comments that the level of trust in companies is higher than the trust in your government. Maybe that's occasionally deserved. I'm probably more paranoid about surveillance than you are. I wrote positively about this app anyway. The average commenter here is, more than likely, like me, not really in the target demographic for this app. I'm male, reasonably strong, and capable of defending myself. I don't worry when I leave the house. Sometimes my female friend, who is passionate about bicycling, tells me about her experiences on the nearby bike trail. Where, every day, she passes by dozens of loitering homeless individuals. Where, some time ago, a woman was dragged off her bike and had her face shattered. Where multiple women have been kidnapped. She expresses fear, but loves her sport enough to overcome it. She rides on a multi-thousand dollar custom-made road bike that's surely appealing for someone desperate enough. Who am I to tell her that her fears are overwrought? My physical safety isn't at stake. For people like her, I think this app is worth consideration. For people like me, I never wanted it.

teddyh 10y ago
How, exactly, would this app help your friend? Please describe the precise scenario.
- twr 10y ago
  Sure. She's dragged off the trail. Her husband notices and notifies the police. She halts during a physical confrontation. Her friend calls to check up on her, and calls the police when she can't be reached. She crashes and becomes incapacitated. Someone checks her location after she fails to meet up. In reality, sports enthusiasts already use expensive tools for this. But the point of my comment wasn't about my affluent friend. It was about similar disadvantaged people facing actual dangers. Nerds complaining about privacy, while the only threat they face is increased cholesterol levels, just seems so trite. Awareness is good. Zealotry isn't.
  - teddyh 10y ago
    > She's dragged off the trail. Her husband notices and notifies the police. How would he notice unless he was actively watching? And what constitutes “off” the trail, anyway? If she strays off the trail for whatever reason, would she have to remember that her husband (or anyone else) might be watching and call the police to intrude on what might be a situation not amenable to improvement by armed personnel? > She halts during a physical confrontation. Her friend calls to check up on her, and calls the police when she can't be reached. How would the police help after a confrontation already has taken place? How fast is the police, really? > She crashes and becomes incapacitated. Someone checks her location after she fails to meet up. All right, in this case it would actually help. But this does not mean that she should have this capability turned on all the time, 24/7; only while she is doing a physically dangerous activity. Like going hiking – it’s normal to leave word of your planned route, in case of emergency. But not all the time. Your “nerds” comment is insulting and demeaning.
    - twr 10y ago
      > How would he notice unless he was actively watching? And what constitutes “off” the trail, anyway? If she strays off the trail for whatever reason, would she have to remember that her husband (or anyone else) might be watching and call the police to intrude on what might be a situation not amenable to improvement by armed personnel? Nearby here, recently, a woman was ambushed and taken off into the woods, and has since vanished. Supposing hypothetically that her hypothetical tracking beacon was emitting several hundred meters off into the unexplored woods, maybe someone would have noticed. Hypothetically. Sorry. It's uncommon for bicyclers to go off course. Bikes don't navigate well through trees. And no one wants to leave their valuable possession behind. And I was being terse before. Normally there would be some attempted contact beforehand. > How would the police help after a confrontation already has taken place? How fast is the police, really? In a kidnapping or injury scenario, time is of importance. Alerting the authorities (or anyone nearby, really) can save a life. If first responders wait additional hours because they were alerted too late, that person may die. People who travel tell people when they expect to return. If they leave on a three-hour trip, and experience catastrophe thirty minutes in, it may be 2.5 to 5+ hours before someone makes an emergency call. > All right, in this case it would actually help. But this does not mean that she should have this capability turned on all the time, 24/7; only while she is doing a physically dangerous activity. Like going hiking – it’s normal to leave word of your planned route, in case of emergency. But not all the time. Sure. I never suggested around-the-clock monitoring. She -- and her bicycling friends -- have been carrying tracking equipment for years. They plot their courses and compete on sprint times. So they are totally used to surveillance. It took me by surprise that so many HNers found the concept anathema. > Your “nerds” comment is insulting and demeaning. I guess. It was mostly tongue-in-cheek. I'm one of them. Sorry for the poor language. It was unwarranted.

mikecb 10y ago

On your second point, this is a very interesting distinction between American and European views of privacy that I've noticed a lot here on HN. I'm curious about the source of European skepticism, but from my own perspective, America has always had a skepticism of government powerfully built into our Constitution, and you can freely choose to associate or disassociate with a business at your leisure; not so with a government. I would really enjoy hearing the other perspective.