8 ms·
Morality aside, does this surprise anyone? All countries use cameras do enforce their laws, why would Iran be different? The problem here is Iran, cameras have
by sdfghswe 4y ago
Morality aside, does this surprise anyone? All countries use cameras do enforce their laws, why would Iran be different?
The problem here is Iran, cameras have nothing to do with it.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoThis reminds me of the "guns don't kill people" argument. Surveillance cameras have everything to do with consolidating power into fewer and fewer hands. Therefore fewer voices of dissent on the levers of power. Iran is going through a demographic shift. The protests and strikes are evidence of a desire for change. With tools like this even small acts of defiance become higher risk.
- 1101010010 4y ago> This reminds me of the "guns don't kill people" argument. So you're telling me if we banned cameras in Iran, women would no longer be oppressed?
- potsandpans 4y agocheck this out, I'm gonna get on the internet and argue in bad faith
- 1101010010 4y agoBlaming asymmetrically powerful technology before man's own perverted ego is simply misguided.
- kelipso 4y ago"Man's own perverted ego" is a constant across all off human history. Asymmetrically powerful technology is not. What are you even doing if you are only going to look at just the former thing?
- paulryanrogers 4y agoNo, that's reductive, though women would be less frequently oppressed. I'm saying without cameras people will have more freedom to resist, in big and small ways. And with enough resistance they may enact meaningful change. Cameras are tightening the noose on the opposition to those in power.
- FormerBandmate 4y agoAmerica should not sell surveillance cameras to Iran. We are not, and literally no one is advocating for this. This is entirely on Iran, and maybe the Chinese company selling them cameras if it exists
- 1101010010 4y ago> women would be less frequently oppressed. That does not logically follow; another technology would just as soon take the place of surveillance cameras (phone tracking, social stigma, stricter laws and punishment). It is the intent of the oppressor and the courage of a culture to resist it that matters most.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoNot necessarily. And other methods may be less effective or less ubiquitous.
- DesiLurker 4y agoBut Isn't that true for most technology? it tends to amplify power & if there is already concentration of power than tech will make it worse. I mean even in US tech has created a lot more inequality (though growing the pie but still). sad thing is this is only the start, wait till you see what pervalant surveillance powered with AI/GPT-X brings.
- GinsengJar 4y agoThat's not what they said. Oppression would still be present. The issue is the impact and influence protestors could have had simply wouldn't be possible as any dissent will be met with a knock at the door the moment it is uttered.
- ta1243 4y agoFace recognition allow the east german neighbour reporting on neighbour, but automated and scalable.
- sdfghswe 4y ago> This reminds me of the "guns don't kill people" argument. > Surveillance cameras have everything to do with consolidating power into fewer and fewer hands. Therefore fewer voices of dissent on the levers of power. > Iran is going through a demographic shift. The protests and strikes are evidence of a desire for change. With tools like this even small acts of defiance become higher risk. People with guns kill more people than people without guns. Oppressive governments with cameras oppress more people than oppressive governments without cameras. I think you and I agree that it's a matter of degree. But in that case, why is this link interesting? And if it's not interesting, why is it in HN? I consider that "government that's well known to be very oppressive decided to take another step to increase oppression" isn't interesting.
- macintux 4y agoTechnology being (mis)used to increase oppression is generally interesting to a technical audience.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoI think that tech surveillance, and news about ratcheting oppressive governments do, is interesting -- especially where they overlap If nothing else it spurs discussion about the ethics of our field. Perhaps it will give some pause before pushing the state of the art forward, or working for shady operators.
- 1101010010 4y ago> People with guns kill more people than people without guns. The irony of this statement is government is historically responsible for the most deaths as they are best armed. When technology like firearms are decentralized and more people have access to them, fewer overall deaths occur and more individual freedom ensues. Same concept for cameras, when they are pointed at police and agents of the state by citizens.
- letrowekwel 4y agoIt all depends very much from social context. In my country stricter gun control has absolutely saved lives, simply because it has effectively prevented random mentally ill people from committing school shootings. It didn't make our government or police forces any more oppressive.
- nashashmi 4y ago> Iran is going through a demographic shift We have been hearing this argument for too long from those who are anti Iran.
- CamperBob2 4y ago[flagged]
- letrowekwel 4y agoIt should be still common sense to limit access to guns, so that people who are likely to harm themselves or others can't just go and buy one easily. Works very well in most of Europe.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoIf we're talking about fatalities then stats for gun deaths don't reinforce the argument that they are an unalloyed good, or that reducing their prevalence is impossible.
- CamperBob2 4y agoYou seem to be arguing a point that was made by no one present in the conversation. That aside, if you want to talk statistics, your biggest threat comes from the guns in the hands of your own country's police or military authorities. Sort of like the cameras under discussion.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoI'm arguing against apathetic statements like restricting gun access is a "fatal distraction"
- jabradoodle 4y agoThis is a strawman. No one blamed cameras here, the cause for alarm is that facial recognition technology enables oppression at scale.
- plagiarist 4y agoCameras used for omnipresent government surveillance absolutely do have something to do with aiding the targeting of political dissidents. That said, I agree it is not surprising to anyone here. I hope more people get clued in.
- candiodari 4y agoYeah I hope at some point protesters will just start attacking cameras (with paint, for example). It's just something we really need to start doing.
- jabradoodle 4y agoCameras are absolutely relevant here, it is unlikely this approach would be feasible pre facial recognition. This kind of thing is terrifying and not worth hand waving away.
- andrewflnr 4y agoIt's surprising to me that they're doing it after the massive protests against the law.
- kar5pt 4y agoCameras amplify the damage that bad laws can do.