5 ms·

I haven't read the article but I think the outrage is misplaced. There are people forced to wear a Islamic head dress. The solution is not to ban Islamic head d

by pooper 4y ago

I haven't read the article but I think the outrage is misplaced. There are people forced to wear a Islamic head dress. The solution is not to ban Islamic head dress. There are people forced into sex slavery and prostitution. The solution isn't to ban prostitution. There are people who are forced into an abortion. The solution is not to ban abortion. The solution to abuse cannot be curtailing of rights.

FredPret 4y ago
Pooper, you should run for office
- tomcam 4y ago
  I too must hear more about the Pooper platform
  - pooper 4y ago
    Sorry to disappoint but I'll never win any election. Inconsistency annoys me so I'll try to make my thoughts consistent. One thing I learned from HN is housing cannot be both a universal human right and a reliable asset for people to retire out of so I must choose the former. This by itself means I cannot win any meaningful political office, or if I do, I cannot imagine not being swiftly nerfed so I won't be able to act on it. Now that I've alienated homeowners, next idea I have is elimination of all credits, deductions, and exclusions or anything like that when it comes to taxes. You can probably see how this is a very bad idea for national security. Next idea is eliminating income eligibility or similar ideas in government programs. Everyone from the richest people to the poorest should feel safe to take advantage of all our programs. At this point, I'm sure I've made enough enemies that I won't even get ballot access (:
    - FredPret 4y ago
      I think to win, you have to find commonalities enough people share to get them to vote for you. You just have to find your tribe. We should all be more politically active - look at what happens when only the idiots do it.
DiggyJohnson 4y ago
It is shocking how much this extra level of discussion about values and policy is not addressed. Thanks for making it so succinctly.
DennisP 4y ago
What about my neighbor's Ring doorbell, pointed at my front door from across the street?
- Xylakant 4y ago
  Rules in germany are that you can have video surveillance, but it must not cover public spaces. A ring doorbell monitoring your porch is fine, recoding the sidewalk not. Now, enforcement is another issue, but the rules make sense.
- unreal37 4y ago
  That is illegal in some countries. For instance in Portugal, you can't film roads or other people's private property. So "car dashcams" are illegal. And any surveillance cameras you have on your property cannot be pointed at someone else's property. https://europe-cities.com/2022/09/12/the-use-of-%E2%80%B3dash-cams%E2%80%B3-in-portugal/ https://europe-cities.com/2022/09/12/the-use-of-%E2%80%B3das...
- sneak 4y ago
  I’m torn on this one; as a photographer and videographer I find the right to shoot or film anything I can see from a legal vantage point very near and dear to me. We should always be legally allowed to film public places. Europe’s legislative approach to this is wrong, I think, but I see the problem. Perhaps we need different societal norms.
  - __d 4y ago
    I'm ok with it being legal to photograph, video, or record audio of public spaces without people. I'm pretty sure I'd prefer that photographing, filming, or audio recording me in an identifiable way was illegal without my explicit consent. I think public officials should be subject to recording while performing their duties. I think celebrities should not, unless they explicitly consent. Security cameras might need some sort of exemption: record, but don't look except under explicit circumstances (like, you've been robbed).
    - 4y ago
mechanical_bear 4y ago
First of all, at least you are honest about commenting on something for which you have no basis to be commenting on, having not read the article. Second, the appropriate response may not be to ban all of those things outright, but comprehensive regulation is certainly within the best interests of society. Finally, the casual assertion of abortion as a right is noted and summarily rejected. I won’t engage further though on that point, in an effort to not drag us off topic.
- godelski 4y ago
  > as a right I just want to note that there are two types of "rights." There's positive and negative rights. Negative rights are the typical libertarian types of issues, namely that things cannot be taken away from you or rather that you do not have s specific duty. These are things like freedom of speech (no duty to regulate your speech), freedom of religion (no duty to have a specific religion), fair trial, life, the right to not be enslaved by another, etc. tldr: you have no duty to act (or not act) in a certain manner. Positive rights are typically left leaning and are entitlements. As an example, you have the right (you are entitled) to an attorney. Others include public education, national security, and a minimum wage. People are advocating for other things like the right to clean water, fair housing, higher education, health care, internet access, etc. tldr: you do have a duty to act (or not act) in a certain manner (often in the form of taxes). I bring this up because people often talk past one another because they just say "rights" and are using different definition. So I believe this causes a lot of fighting rather than productive conversation as people just embed the idea that "rights are rights." It is also a good example of where communication breaks down because what is obvious to one party is not obvious to another party and they are operating in completely different frameworks, refusing to recognize that the other party is operating in said framework. As for abortion (maybe I'm maybe sidetracking) it is often considered a negative right because one (the state) needs to take action to stop a specific action (abortion). Though it can also be framed as a positive right if either 1) the fetus is viewed as a human, and thus they are being deprived of their rights to life through the action of another or 2) one is forcing physicians to perform abortions.
godelski 4y ago
I agree and disagree. As I see it, the solution is to use privacy preserving techniques. Federated learning would be a nice start but isn't good enough. Homomorphic learning would be the acceptable solution here as we could then preserve privacy and get the benefits (corporations would still profit from the data too). I'm honestly surprised that there's no big push for this by companies like Meta, Google, or Apple. You want to say you actually care about privacy? Put your money where your mouth is. I do honestly expect the first ad style company that is fully homomorphic will upset the balance that we have now.
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  > I'm honestly surprised that there's no big push for this by companies like Meta, Google, or Apple. You want to say you actually care about privacy? Put your money where your mouth is. Apple HomeKit will stream, process, encrypt the data locally then upload the encrypted data to iCloud so I think we're seeing it? Lots of other companies (nest?) are offering on-device or on-lan processing of video feed. TBH this is probably so the company saves on bandwidth.

by pooper 4y ago

FredPret 4y ago

Pooper, you should run for office

tomcam 4y ago
I too must hear more about the Pooper platform
- pooper 4y ago
  Sorry to disappoint but I'll never win any election. Inconsistency annoys me so I'll try to make my thoughts consistent. One thing I learned from HN is housing cannot be both a universal human right and a reliable asset for people to retire out of so I must choose the former. This by itself means I cannot win any meaningful political office, or if I do, I cannot imagine not being swiftly nerfed so I won't be able to act on it. Now that I've alienated homeowners, next idea I have is elimination of all credits, deductions, and exclusions or anything like that when it comes to taxes. You can probably see how this is a very bad idea for national security. Next idea is eliminating income eligibility or similar ideas in government programs. Everyone from the richest people to the poorest should feel safe to take advantage of all our programs. At this point, I'm sure I've made enough enemies that I won't even get ballot access (:
  - FredPret 4y ago
    I think to win, you have to find commonalities enough people share to get them to vote for you. You just have to find your tribe. We should all be more politically active - look at what happens when only the idiots do it.

DiggyJohnson 4y ago

It is shocking how much this extra level of discussion about values and policy is not addressed. Thanks for making it so succinctly.

DennisP 4y ago

What about my neighbor's Ring doorbell, pointed at my front door from across the street?

Xylakant 4y ago
Rules in germany are that you can have video surveillance, but it must not cover public spaces. A ring doorbell monitoring your porch is fine, recoding the sidewalk not. Now, enforcement is another issue, but the rules make sense.
unreal37 4y ago
That is illegal in some countries. For instance in Portugal, you can't film roads or other people's private property. So "car dashcams" are illegal. And any surveillance cameras you have on your property cannot be pointed at someone else's property. https://europe-cities.com/2022/09/12/the-use-of-%E2%80%B3dash-cams%E2%80%B3-in-portugal/ https://europe-cities.com/2022/09/12/the-use-of-%E2%80%B3das...
sneak 4y ago
I’m torn on this one; as a photographer and videographer I find the right to shoot or film anything I can see from a legal vantage point very near and dear to me. We should always be legally allowed to film public places. Europe’s legislative approach to this is wrong, I think, but I see the problem. Perhaps we need different societal norms.
- __d 4y ago
  I'm ok with it being legal to photograph, video, or record audio of public spaces without people. I'm pretty sure I'd prefer that photographing, filming, or audio recording me in an identifiable way was illegal without my explicit consent. I think public officials should be subject to recording while performing their duties. I think celebrities should not, unless they explicitly consent. Security cameras might need some sort of exemption: record, but don't look except under explicit circumstances (like, you've been robbed).
  - 4y ago

mechanical_bear 4y ago

First of all, at least you are honest about commenting on something for which you have no basis to be commenting on, having not read the article. Second, the appropriate response may not be to ban all of those things outright, but comprehensive regulation is certainly within the best interests of society. Finally, the casual assertion of abortion as a right is noted and summarily rejected. I won’t engage further though on that point, in an effort to not drag us off topic.

godelski 4y ago
> as a right I just want to note that there are two types of "rights." There's positive and negative rights. Negative rights are the typical libertarian types of issues, namely that things cannot be taken away from you or rather that you do not have s specific duty. These are things like freedom of speech (no duty to regulate your speech), freedom of religion (no duty to have a specific religion), fair trial, life, the right to not be enslaved by another, etc. tldr: you have no duty to act (or not act) in a certain manner. Positive rights are typically left leaning and are entitlements. As an example, you have the right (you are entitled) to an attorney. Others include public education, national security, and a minimum wage. People are advocating for other things like the right to clean water, fair housing, higher education, health care, internet access, etc. tldr: you do have a duty to act (or not act) in a certain manner (often in the form of taxes). I bring this up because people often talk past one another because they just say "rights" and are using different definition. So I believe this causes a lot of fighting rather than productive conversation as people just embed the idea that "rights are rights." It is also a good example of where communication breaks down because what is obvious to one party is not obvious to another party and they are operating in completely different frameworks, refusing to recognize that the other party is operating in said framework. As for abortion (maybe I'm maybe sidetracking) it is often considered a negative right because one (the state) needs to take action to stop a specific action (abortion). Though it can also be framed as a positive right if either 1) the fetus is viewed as a human, and thus they are being deprived of their rights to life through the action of another or 2) one is forcing physicians to perform abortions.

godelski 4y ago

I agree and disagree. As I see it, the solution is to use privacy preserving techniques. Federated learning would be a nice start but isn't good enough. Homomorphic learning would be the acceptable solution here as we could then preserve privacy and get the benefits (corporations would still profit from the data too). I'm honestly surprised that there's no big push for this by companies like Meta, Google, or Apple. You want to say you actually care about privacy? Put your money where your mouth is. I do honestly expect the first ad style company that is fully homomorphic will upset the balance that we have now.

vineyardmike 4y ago
> I'm honestly surprised that there's no big push for this by companies like Meta, Google, or Apple. You want to say you actually care about privacy? Put your money where your mouth is. Apple HomeKit will stream, process, encrypt the data locally then upload the encrypted data to iCloud so I think we're seeing it? Lots of other companies (nest?) are offering on-device or on-lan processing of video feed. TBH this is probably so the company saves on bandwidth.