4 ms·

1. A camera can't shoot you--seeing as this thread is about cameras in US cities, and police brutality is an issue here, I don't want a bunch of power-hungry co

1. A camera can't shoot you--seeing as this thread is about cameras in US cities, and police brutality is an issue here, I don't want a bunch of power-hungry cops with a license to murder on every corner of every US city. That sounds both insanely wasteful and also dangerous. 2. I really don't understand how having a cop on the street corner is any better than the "Orwellian" camera. In both cases, you're being watched, but one case comes with the added benefit that the watcher has a loaded gun. 3. The power imbalance is worse with a cop than a camera. With footage, you might be able to subpoena the footage. With a cop testifying against you, it's their word against yours and cops are almost always trusted more than the people they arrest/accuse.

NikolaNovak 7y ago
>>I really don't understand how having a cop on the street corner is any better than the "Orwellian" camera. In both cases, you're being watched Hmm; that feels a dishonest argument - I would expect HN audience to understand the differences between the two without being prompted. One of them will record the observation, store it potentially indefinitely, and enable unfathomable correlations for unfathomable purposes. If it's really not clear, I would venture most people being OK with cop but not OK with a camera, feel that an honest cop may notice a particular law being broken right now, but a network of cameras may notice all kinds of things that are not illegal, as such, but may still be used against you. (not to say that I disagree with your premise of US Cops being more dangerous than cameras; just that it shouldn't take much effort to have a basic understanding about other perspectives)
- lovehashbrowns 7y ago
  > I would expect HN audience to understand the differences between the two without being prompted. I would expect you to not be so condescending. The comment I replied to didn't make any sort of actual argument; it's just a statement. Therefore, I don't understand how they reached their conclusion. > One of them will record the observation, store it potentially indefinitely, and enable unfathomable correlations for unfathomable purposes. Right, and the other will not record the observation, potentially beat you or shoot you, and if you take it to court, have their word trusted against yours almost universally by a jury, leaving you absolutely no recourse when you lose the case because the police officer may or may not have lied in their report. > just that it shouldn't take much effort to have a basic understanding about other perspectives Sorry I'm so dumb, I guess?
  - NikolaNovak 7y ago
    Apologies if it sounded condescending; it was the "I really don't understand how..." part of the post that, in turn, sounded to me as condescending - as if there's no plausible way anybody would prefer a cop over a camera, to the point you can't even understand why somebody would think so. It sounded dishonest because I feel, and perhaps I'm wrong, that with some effort to understand another person's perspective, most HN audience would be able to understand why somebody might prefer a cop over a camera. I am still not certain - were you literally unable to understand why somebody would prefer a cop, or were you unwilling to make the effort, or - something else? :|
    - lovehashbrowns 7y ago
      I literally don't understand why somebody would prefer a cop over a camera on every street corner of the US. And just to be double clear, I understand the downsides of having everything on video; in this hypothetical situation, it's my opinion that having a cop on every street corner of the US is the greater evil, while having a camera in their place is a lesser evil. Both evils, both absurd hypothetical scenarios. Both fun to think about because I like dystopian societies.
      - NikolaNovak 7y ago
        Well, then, I suppose I was / am condescending, with a dose of pity and sadness: - If your message is "I vehemently disagree, with every bone in my body, with the idea of having cops instead of cameras" - sure, that's a valid viewpoint we can have a lot of fun productively discussing, even if we never in the end agree. - If your message is, as you repeatedly indicate, "I literally don't understand [the other point of view]", there is no discussion to be had. From where I'm standing, you are either unwilling, or incapable, of making the effort. A physical/sociopathic lack of empathy, or inability or willingness to process and examine different perspectives, or incredible amount of stubbornness, whatever it may be. If details of other side are presented to you, and you still "literally don't understand" it, then... I don't know, discussion is done one way or another? We are failing on point one of the pyramid of productive/honest discussions and arguments [1]. [note in this framework, understanding, and agreeing, are entirely separate considerations] 1: http://www.openculture.com/2019/06/how-to-argue-with-kindness-and-care-4-rules-from-philosopher-daniel-dennett.html http://www.openculture.com/2019/06/how-to-argue-with-kindnes...

NikolaNovak 7y ago

>>I really don't understand how having a cop on the street corner is any better than the "Orwellian" camera. In both cases, you're being watched Hmm; that feels a dishonest argument - I would expect HN audience to understand the differences between the two without being prompted. One of them will record the observation, store it potentially indefinitely, and enable unfathomable correlations for unfathomable purposes. If it's really not clear, I would venture most people being OK with cop but not OK with a camera, feel that an honest cop may notice a particular law being broken right now, but a network of cameras may notice all kinds of things that are not illegal, as such, but may still be used against you. (not to say that I disagree with your premise of US Cops being more dangerous than cameras; just that it shouldn't take much effort to have a basic understanding about other perspectives)

lovehashbrowns 7y ago
> I would expect HN audience to understand the differences between the two without being prompted. I would expect you to not be so condescending. The comment I replied to didn't make any sort of actual argument; it's just a statement. Therefore, I don't understand how they reached their conclusion. > One of them will record the observation, store it potentially indefinitely, and enable unfathomable correlations for unfathomable purposes. Right, and the other will not record the observation, potentially beat you or shoot you, and if you take it to court, have their word trusted against yours almost universally by a jury, leaving you absolutely no recourse when you lose the case because the police officer may or may not have lied in their report. > just that it shouldn't take much effort to have a basic understanding about other perspectives Sorry I'm so dumb, I guess?
- NikolaNovak 7y ago
  Apologies if it sounded condescending; it was the "I really don't understand how..." part of the post that, in turn, sounded to me as condescending - as if there's no plausible way anybody would prefer a cop over a camera, to the point you can't even understand why somebody would think so. It sounded dishonest because I feel, and perhaps I'm wrong, that with some effort to understand another person's perspective, most HN audience would be able to understand why somebody might prefer a cop over a camera. I am still not certain - were you literally unable to understand why somebody would prefer a cop, or were you unwilling to make the effort, or - something else? :|
  - lovehashbrowns 7y ago
    I literally don't understand why somebody would prefer a cop over a camera on every street corner of the US. And just to be double clear, I understand the downsides of having everything on video; in this hypothetical situation, it's my opinion that having a cop on every street corner of the US is the greater evil, while having a camera in their place is a lesser evil. Both evils, both absurd hypothetical scenarios. Both fun to think about because I like dystopian societies.
    - NikolaNovak 7y ago
      Well, then, I suppose I was / am condescending, with a dose of pity and sadness: - If your message is "I vehemently disagree, with every bone in my body, with the idea of having cops instead of cameras" - sure, that's a valid viewpoint we can have a lot of fun productively discussing, even if we never in the end agree. - If your message is, as you repeatedly indicate, "I literally don't understand [the other point of view]", there is no discussion to be had. From where I'm standing, you are either unwilling, or incapable, of making the effort. A physical/sociopathic lack of empathy, or inability or willingness to process and examine different perspectives, or incredible amount of stubbornness, whatever it may be. If details of other side are presented to you, and you still "literally don't understand" it, then... I don't know, discussion is done one way or another? We are failing on point one of the pyramid of productive/honest discussions and arguments [1]. [note in this framework, understanding, and agreeing, are entirely separate considerations] 1: http://www.openculture.com/2019/06/how-to-argue-with-kindness-and-care-4-rules-from-philosopher-daniel-dennett.html http://www.openculture.com/2019/06/how-to-argue-with-kindnes...