6 ms·

> 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. T

> 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 ago
Technology being (mis)used to increase oppression is generally interesting to a technical audience.
paulryanrogers 4y ago
I 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 ago
  It 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.
  - 1101010010 4y ago
    I'm not interested in discussing personal anecdotes, only factual history which is replete with examples of state-sponsored genocide and tyranny when the population is disarmed.
    - sdfghswe 4y ago
      Seems to me your claims are also personal anecdotes. You claim something, the other guy claims something else. The real difference is that you're claiming that the answer is universal, whereas the other guy is saying it depends. The way I see it you're making a stronger claim and thus have a higher burden of proof. And yet, you offered none.
      - 1101010010 4y ago
        You can start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre and follow with a middle school history book about Germany, China or about a dozen other nations.
        sdfghswe 4y ago
        That looks like a personal anecdote to me, exactly like what the other guy said. He said "in my country such and such happened". And you're saying "here's an example of such and such happening". EDIT: But now that we're at it, > The Wounded Knee Massacre, also known as the Battle of Wounded Knee, was a massacre of nearly three hundred Lakota people by soldiers of the United States Army. 300 people seems like nothing compared to the number of people that dies every year due to (civilian) gun violence. You're just thinking binary, you're not thinking with numbers. Also your best example is from 1890. Roughly the same amount of people that died in school shootings in the first three months of this year. Your commitment to ideology is hilarious.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  > When technology like firearms are decentralized and more people have access to them, fewer overall deaths occur and more individual freedom ensues What evidence proves this is true?
  - 1101010010 4y ago
    History and common sense. Name one genocide that happened against an armed civilian population.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  The US is arguably the only country in the world where a significant % of citizens possess firearms. If US army decided to commit genocide against even some subset of those citizens, do you really think said firearms would help much? (Edit: more curiously, has there actually been an example of a democractically-elected government committing genocide?)
  - 1101010010 4y ago
    > If US army decided to commit genocide against even some subset of those citizens, do you really think said firearms would help much? It worked well for Afghanistan, also Vietnam.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      Do you really believe either was an example of attempted genocide? I don't think anyone believes the US lost in Vietnam because local citizens had access to firearms.
JieJie 4y ago
The US just invented an AI that, in a future version might one day be hooked up to all our cameras. I would like for us to start thinking about how we want that to play out now, rather than later. I hope you'll join us for that conversation.
- akomtu 4y ago
  CCTV cameras is a benign form of survelliance. In the future everyone will have to wear an AR ring on their heads, similar to what was shown in Watchmen, that ring, paired with attached eyeglasses will be an always online connection to the Internet, necessary for any participation in society, and the only input will be the "inner dialogue" speech that this ring device will detect in the speech-related regions of the brain.

macintux 4y ago

Technology being (mis)used to increase oppression is generally interesting to a technical audience.

paulryanrogers 4y ago

I 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 ago
It 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.
- 1101010010 4y ago
  I'm not interested in discussing personal anecdotes, only factual history which is replete with examples of state-sponsored genocide and tyranny when the population is disarmed.
  - sdfghswe 4y ago
    Seems to me your claims are also personal anecdotes. You claim something, the other guy claims something else. The real difference is that you're claiming that the answer is universal, whereas the other guy is saying it depends. The way I see it you're making a stronger claim and thus have a higher burden of proof. And yet, you offered none.
    - 1101010010 4y ago
      You can start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre and follow with a middle school history book about Germany, China or about a dozen other nations.
      - sdfghswe 4y ago
        That looks like a personal anecdote to me, exactly like what the other guy said. He said "in my country such and such happened". And you're saying "here's an example of such and such happening". EDIT: But now that we're at it, > The Wounded Knee Massacre, also known as the Battle of Wounded Knee, was a massacre of nearly three hundred Lakota people by soldiers of the United States Army. 300 people seems like nothing compared to the number of people that dies every year due to (civilian) gun violence. You're just thinking binary, you're not thinking with numbers. Also your best example is from 1890. Roughly the same amount of people that died in school shootings in the first three months of this year. Your commitment to ideology is hilarious.
paulryanrogers 4y ago
> When technology like firearms are decentralized and more people have access to them, fewer overall deaths occur and more individual freedom ensues What evidence proves this is true?
- 1101010010 4y ago
  History and common sense. Name one genocide that happened against an armed civilian population.
wizofaus 4y ago
The US is arguably the only country in the world where a significant % of citizens possess firearms. If US army decided to commit genocide against even some subset of those citizens, do you really think said firearms would help much? (Edit: more curiously, has there actually been an example of a democractically-elected government committing genocide?)
- 1101010010 4y ago
  > If US army decided to commit genocide against even some subset of those citizens, do you really think said firearms would help much? It worked well for Afghanistan, also Vietnam.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    Do you really believe either was an example of attempted genocide? I don't think anyone believes the US lost in Vietnam because local citizens had access to firearms.

JieJie 4y ago

The US just invented an AI that, in a future version might one day be hooked up to all our cameras. I would like for us to start thinking about how we want that to play out now, rather than later. I hope you'll join us for that conversation.

akomtu 4y ago
CCTV cameras is a benign form of survelliance. In the future everyone will have to wear an AR ring on their heads, similar to what was shown in Watchmen, that ring, paired with attached eyeglasses will be an always online connection to the Internet, necessary for any participation in society, and the only input will be the "inner dialogue" speech that this ring device will detect in the speech-related regions of the brain.