7 ms·
U.S. Watched George Floyd Protests in 15 Cities Using Aerial Surveillance
- wmichelin 6y agoAnything without a paywall?
- eindiran 6y agoFor the NYT, disabling JavaScript with eg the NoScript extension is sufficient to read the article without the paywall.
- arprocter 6y agoSadly it appears that they fixed the .com. thing
- ethanwillis 6y agoI don't get why this comment is being downvoted. This definitely contributes to the discussion. If the entire or a majority of the front page is paywalled articles than those of us who can't afford, don't want to support a specific publication, etc. can't meaningfully contribute to the discussion. I think this is a BAD thing for the health of the comment section. An even worse outcome is people commenting based on the headline and maybe a blurb only. How is that supposed to promote a good community? If you want paywalled articles being the bulk of the posts on hacker news that garner discussions then we might as well just go ahead and paywall this site.. because it's slowly becoming a paywalled tech discussion site.. just with more steps.
- leetcrew 6y agothere are simple ways of circumventing paywalls for most of the commonly linked sites. NYT for example can be bypassed just by using reader mode in Firefox. for the others, this extension is a good start: https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome/blob/master/README.md https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome/blob/ma... it is mildly annoying to see the same complaint over and over when the solution involves only a minimal amount of research.
- ethanwillis 6y agoThis is a short term solution to a long term problem. The point is not workarounds or bypasses.
- o-__-o 6y agoSo would I be wrong to post a link to a full movie when link requests you pay for it? Piracy is piracy
- aaomidi 6y agoExcept in this case you can link to another news site for the same story.
- ethanwillis 6y agoPiracy is a result of a bad business model.
- evgen 6y agoPiracy is the result of you wanting something and not wanting to pay anything towards its creation and the upkeep of the creators. Piracy is the collective result of personal greed. Don't try to hide it, and don't try to tart it up in some BS about bad business models.
- ethanwillis 6y agoThat's not even remotely true across the board. I won't bother digging into all of the details of bad publishing business models in academia, but that is a direct counterpoint to the blanket statement you're trying to make. With staying on topic re: The costs to the end consumers. It's not personal greed to not want to pay to access the content when the cost of the content doesn't reflect the cost to produce it or even a "fair premium" on top of what it costs to produce it. You're also discounting the business models themselves and how they work. Let's say I care to read this one specific article from NYT. Why do I have to pay to access all of their content? If they want more money they'd allow me to do a microtransaction to purchase this article. And no, not 20-30% of what a month long subscription costs. It is in fact a bad business model. In either case, I don't pirate these articles and I'm even arguing against using workarounds to view them without paying. So don't try to paint me as some comically evil person who just "doesn't want to pay" because my argument is inconvenient to your world view.
- waltpad 6y ago> I don't get why this comment is being downvoted. It probably tells that you also hit the paywall. Those who downvoted probably didn't, perhaps because their setup doesn't trigger it by default, or because they searched by themselves how to avoid it. I personally didn't see any paywall when accessing the site directly (ie, without a VPN).
- keith___talent 6y agoIf you’re U.S. based you may have free access to the NYT and other paywall ed news sources through your library. Usually they call it e-media and you can access news sources and magazines from across the nation and around the world. Hopefully your city library has e-resources you can take advantage of and participate more fully in the conversation.
- TechBro8615 6y agohttps://beta.trimread.com/articles/21954 https://beta.trimread.com/articles/21954 For browser extension, see: https://github.com/iamadamdev https://github.com/iamadamdev
- TheMblabla 6y agoTrimRead seems like an awesome idea! There are so many times I couldn't read an article sent to me/participate in a discussion because of a paywall.
- Bostonian 6y agoI want the looters and arsonists to be caught, and if aerial photos can identify them, good.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gruez 6y ago...and those cops assaulting peaceful protesters, right?
- BLKNSLVR 6y agoTo lean towards the socially responsible bent of your comment, yes, the arsonists and looters need to be caught so that, in future, peaceful protests cannot be misrepresented by the media or authorities as agents of anarchy, chaos, and destruction. The message of the protesters is lost, or at least greatly obscured, by the actions of the destructive few. The protests are about improving the civility of society. Arson and looting works against that. Also, if military surveillance is going to be used, the footage should apply to identification of any and all criminal activity, including that of police officers acting in violation of their role to serve and protect (making the potentially incorrect assumption that they're meant to be serving and protecting a civil society). How much good grace would be earned if the military surveillance was used to prosecute police brutality and misuse of authority in addition to arson and looting?
- chasd00 6y agoand?
- unethical_ban 6y agoThe federal government had no need to surveil its citizens in addition to the thousands of police officers and helicopters and drones at a city and state level. It also shows such a signal of prioritization: Why isn't the federal government protecting its citizens from bad police officers? Why did it take three weeks of peaceful demonstrations (and some violence) to get any attention to this?
- microcolonel 6y agoAre we supposed to be upset? It's easy to play down what's been happening these past few weeks from a suburb or small city, but we should hope that the extreme criminal acts that have destroyed whole neighborhoods recently at least have some chance of being solved. Much as the sympathizers would like to deflect that insurance is somehow going to cover all of this (it isn't), anyone who complains about “food deserts” but cheers on riots in the hood is part of the problem whether they admit it or not.
- salusinarduis 6y agoIt is illegal to use military equipment like drones on US soil.
- microcolonel 6y agoDepends on what you mean. If they fired missiles at civilians you'd have a point, but merely flying a drone in the U.S. is routine, civilians do it. Some cities and states have restrictions on the routine use of drones by police, but using aerial surveillance is not generally illegal in the U.S. far as I'm aware (nor do I think it should be).
- relbeek2 6y agoWith that logic would it not also be illegal for military jets and helicopters to fly on "US soil"
- 1helloworld1 6y agoNobody in power cared about George Floyd's death until the violent protests. As Noam Chomksy once said - See, people with power understand exactly one thing: violence.
- microcolonel 6y ago> Nobody in power cared about George Floyd's deaths until the violent protest That is untrue. Well before the executions, arsons, and burglaries, there was essentially no ambiguity in the public perception of the case. Most people who watched the video believed they witnessed a murder, and that charge was already planned for Chauvin, well before the public was aware of riots. And of course, even if it did work, it would still be wrong, and the people executing people and shooting senior citizens to death to steal televisions should be prosecuted.
- threatofrain 6y agoAlso relevant, Air Force is investigating the use of military planes during protests. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/us/politics/investigation-military-surveillance-planes-george-floyd-protests.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/us/politics/investigation...
- jmpman 6y agoDo those drones go through the same FAA certifications as human manned planes? If not, they shouldn’t be allowed to fly over US civilian populations.
- o-__-o 6y agoYes https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/ua/ https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certifica... Further drone operators are required to stay in contact with ATC while a flight plan is in effect. VFR rules apply while the drone is in eyesight of the operator. Assume the government can override these requirements with a flick of a pen.
- loraa 6y agoThat is funny. I noticed a very unusual amount of military aircraft including air to air refueling tankers in flight today and a good number of Canadian ones on the Canadian side as well. I wonder how much of it really has to do with the protests. If I was a terrorist or other bad actor with some devious plans, this is a great time to act.
- koheripbal 6y agoIf the words "aerial surveillance" was replaced with the word "helicopter", then this article could have been posted verbatim 40 years ago, and been just as inconsequential.
- consumer451 6y agoThey didn’t have stingrays 40 years ago.
- masonic 6y ago40 years ago, stingrays weren't necessary to monitor cellular calls.
- consumer451 6y agoYes, but my point is that 40 years ago the intelligence capabilities of an aerial vehicle were orders of magnitude less useful. A jet ranger carrying a passenger with binoculars is vastly different than that same jet ranger with modern optics and RF packages. The only real commonality between the two is that they are both deployed on aerial platforms.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rasz 6y agoThe real question is how many of ICE drone platforms were armed?
- Fjolsvith 6y agoSeriously? As in making an airstrike on illegals type of armed?