4 ms·

And if your daughter was murdered, you want them dead. That is not how we made our legislation work.

nodesocket 8y ago
Most people want justice, thus the police to find the murderer, arrest them, and bring them in front of a judge or jury for their due punishment. Limiting the polices technology and resources is an argument that doesn't make sense to me. Especially coming from open source advocates. Smells of hypocrisy.
- hef19898 8y ago
  Yes, it kind of does. See, you want tech in place that can easily turn into mass-surveillance to catch a criminal you have been a victim of. And you want him punished. So, for both things are laws i. place, exactly to get these emotions out of the picture.
- hueving 8y ago
  Open source has nothing to do with data. If you think open source people don't care about privacy you know nothing about open source. People want justice, but they also want individual liberties to not be violated. Particularly in the US the Constitution is filled with stuff to keep a government seeking 'justice' from getting out of control.
- andun 8y ago
  I'm with you. Never mind the leftist narrative of HN. You fight the good fight.
  - detaro 8y ago
    Since when is "limiting the powers of the state" a "leftist narrative"? Because that what it boils down to.
    - andun 8y ago
      The argument usually is "this will be used to target minorities/dissidents/illegal immigrants"
      - Majestic121 8y ago
        The typical 'leftist narrative' is a nanny state over-using its power to censor alt-right to protect 'minorities/dissidents/illegal immigrants'. I'd place 'less government power' as more of a rightist narrative (see gun control for example)
  - ckocagil 8y ago
    It's very ironic that you're defending China's position on mass surveillance tech while complaining about leftists.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  I am a great believer in Sir William Blackstone's view in 1765: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". Particularly with the state of our prisons and the utter ruination of an innocent life, even if later identified as a miscarriage of justice. Innocent until proven guilty, and police gathering evidence of a crime and scene to find, catch, interview and potentially prosecute a suspect. If that proves more expensive, spend enough on policing to achieve adequate deterrence and conviction rates. The problem with any mass trawl or systemic facial recognition is it makes it utterly trivial to abuse the rights of those who happen to be in a minority group, or to actively look for crimes with which to persecute someone disliked. This is policing the wrong way round. I hold just the same views about traffic enforcement. Cameras and automatic fines worse than a police officer in a patrol car. The officer can let someone off with a chat if there were clear extenuating circumstances - cameras can't. The officer can catch bad or dangerous driving that happens to be at legal speeds - cameras can't. I see no hypocrisy here.
- simion314 8y ago
  >Limiting the polices technology and resources is an argument that doesn't make sense to me. Especially coming from open source advocates. Smells of hypocrisy. You know we have the technology to monitor people location and conversations in real time, we can put those monitoring bracelets on everybody , promise not to use them until a crime is happening and we want to see who was where. This will solve crimes but it gives a big oppressive tool to the state, is your point that all possible tech should be used if is not too expensive so we reduce crime to 0? This may mean cameras on private properties, mandatory personality checks, social score etc.
grondilu 8y ago
> That is not how we made our legislation work. Wasn't it, though? I mean, laws are ultimately decided by vote (directly or indirectly). People are free to agree or not with death penalty, but it's hard to deny that being personally affected by a crime can influence our opinions on the subject. That's why death penalty still exists in several states. Same with facial recognition tech. Despite the legitimate concerns about potential abuse from a government, people can acknowledge that it is an extremely valuable tool for crime investigation and thus law enforcement. So in the end, it all depends on how bad people want an efficient police, and that can definitely depend on our individual experiences with crime.

Most people want justice, thus the police to find the murderer, arrest them, and bring them in front of a judge or jury for their due punishment. Limiting the polices technology and resources is an argument that doesn't make sense to me. Especially coming from open source advocates. Smells of hypocrisy.

hef19898 8y ago
Yes, it kind of does. See, you want tech in place that can easily turn into mass-surveillance to catch a criminal you have been a victim of. And you want him punished. So, for both things are laws i. place, exactly to get these emotions out of the picture.
hueving 8y ago
Open source has nothing to do with data. If you think open source people don't care about privacy you know nothing about open source. People want justice, but they also want individual liberties to not be violated. Particularly in the US the Constitution is filled with stuff to keep a government seeking 'justice' from getting out of control.
andun 8y ago
I'm with you. Never mind the leftist narrative of HN. You fight the good fight.
- detaro 8y ago
  Since when is "limiting the powers of the state" a "leftist narrative"? Because that what it boils down to.
  - andun 8y ago
    The argument usually is "this will be used to target minorities/dissidents/illegal immigrants"
    - Majestic121 8y ago
      The typical 'leftist narrative' is a nanny state over-using its power to censor alt-right to protect 'minorities/dissidents/illegal immigrants'. I'd place 'less government power' as more of a rightist narrative (see gun control for example)
- ckocagil 8y ago
  It's very ironic that you're defending China's position on mass surveillance tech while complaining about leftists.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
I am a great believer in Sir William Blackstone's view in 1765: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". Particularly with the state of our prisons and the utter ruination of an innocent life, even if later identified as a miscarriage of justice. Innocent until proven guilty, and police gathering evidence of a crime and scene to find, catch, interview and potentially prosecute a suspect. If that proves more expensive, spend enough on policing to achieve adequate deterrence and conviction rates. The problem with any mass trawl or systemic facial recognition is it makes it utterly trivial to abuse the rights of those who happen to be in a minority group, or to actively look for crimes with which to persecute someone disliked. This is policing the wrong way round. I hold just the same views about traffic enforcement. Cameras and automatic fines worse than a police officer in a patrol car. The officer can let someone off with a chat if there were clear extenuating circumstances - cameras can't. The officer can catch bad or dangerous driving that happens to be at legal speeds - cameras can't. I see no hypocrisy here.
simion314 8y ago
>Limiting the polices technology and resources is an argument that doesn't make sense to me. Especially coming from open source advocates. Smells of hypocrisy. You know we have the technology to monitor people location and conversations in real time, we can put those monitoring bracelets on everybody , promise not to use them until a crime is happening and we want to see who was where. This will solve crimes but it gives a big oppressive tool to the state, is your point that all possible tech should be used if is not too expensive so we reduce crime to 0? This may mean cameras on private properties, mandatory personality checks, social score etc.

grondilu 8y ago

> That is not how we made our legislation work. Wasn't it, though? I mean, laws are ultimately decided by vote (directly or indirectly). People are free to agree or not with death penalty, but it's hard to deny that being personally affected by a crime can influence our opinions on the subject. That's why death penalty still exists in several states. Same with facial recognition tech. Despite the legitimate concerns about potential abuse from a government, people can acknowledge that it is an extremely valuable tool for crime investigation and thus law enforcement. So in the end, it all depends on how bad people want an efficient police, and that can definitely depend on our individual experiences with crime.