26 ms·

That sounds like a hard line to draw. A tool that makes it easier to look at lots of footage, which happens to get used for garment enforcement, is that a "garm

That sounds like a hard line to draw. A tool that makes it easier to look at lots of footage, which happens to get used for garment enforcement, is that a "garment related tool"? How do we factor in the French government's intention to build its own garment related tools on top of a camera's general purpose interfaces? What if the camera company itself is in France, but it's _suppliers_ are in the US? My goal here isn't just to be annoying and nitpicky. It's to try to make it clear that there are a million different questions interacting here.

xg15 8y ago
Hmm, what's worse, a single populist regulation, punishable by a moderate fine or total information control? Very hard to draw a line indeed...
- oconnor663 8y ago
  I think you just put words in my mouth, which is difficult to respond to on the internet. Of course I agree with you about which is worse. Have you thought about how I can both agree with you and also believe that drawing the line is hard?
  - xg15 8y ago
    Well, my point (which I tried to do sarcastically, admitted) was that I disagree that it's hard to draw a line here: One is a regulation with restricted scope and consequences in a system that otherwise has human rights and individual freedom as core values. (Which doesn't make the regulation itself any good) The other is a system with control of individual knowledge at its root and then developing regulations to further that goal as needed. So, actually, yes, I have thought about it and no, I don't think you can.
int_19h 8y ago
> A tool that makes it easier to look at lots of footage, which happens to get used for garment enforcement, is that a "garment related tool"? By itself, no. If you're making it specifically for the government that has stated that it intends to use it in that manner, or if, based on their past actions, a reasonable person with the same amount of knowledge as you would deduce that it will be used that way, then yes. > What if the camera company itself is in France, but it's _suppliers_ are in the US? Same thing. If suppliers didn't know, they're not responsible (but once we told them, they know, and from there on they'll be judged accordingly). If they did know, or reasonably believed, then they're complicit. > My goal here isn't just to be annoying and nitpicky. It's to try to make it clear that there are a million different questions interacting here. There is, but this isn't really any different from law in general. Governing the behavior of people is always going to be nitpicky; that's why we have centuries of experience with law and its application. Most of these issues have been tackled there, and while they're not resolved to perfection, they are resolved.

xg15 8y ago

Hmm, what's worse, a single populist regulation, punishable by a moderate fine or total information control? Very hard to draw a line indeed...

oconnor663 8y ago
I think you just put words in my mouth, which is difficult to respond to on the internet. Of course I agree with you about which is worse. Have you thought about how I can both agree with you and also believe that drawing the line is hard?
- xg15 8y ago
  Well, my point (which I tried to do sarcastically, admitted) was that I disagree that it's hard to draw a line here: One is a regulation with restricted scope and consequences in a system that otherwise has human rights and individual freedom as core values. (Which doesn't make the regulation itself any good) The other is a system with control of individual knowledge at its root and then developing regulations to further that goal as needed. So, actually, yes, I have thought about it and no, I don't think you can.

int_19h 8y ago

> A tool that makes it easier to look at lots of footage, which happens to get used for garment enforcement, is that a "garment related tool"? By itself, no. If you're making it specifically for the government that has stated that it intends to use it in that manner, or if, based on their past actions, a reasonable person with the same amount of knowledge as you would deduce that it will be used that way, then yes. > What if the camera company itself is in France, but it's _suppliers_ are in the US? Same thing. If suppliers didn't know, they're not responsible (but once we told them, they know, and from there on they'll be judged accordingly). If they did know, or reasonably believed, then they're complicit. > My goal here isn't just to be annoying and nitpicky. It's to try to make it clear that there are a million different questions interacting here. There is, but this isn't really any different from law in general. Governing the behavior of people is always going to be nitpicky; that's why we have centuries of experience with law and its application. Most of these issues have been tackled there, and while they're not resolved to perfection, they are resolved.