4 ms·
...wait, you don't think police departments currently go after dissidents by looking for anything they can charge them for, or that surveillance technology allo
by banannaise 3y ago
...wait, you don't think police departments currently go after dissidents by looking for anything they can charge them for, or that surveillance technology allows them to do this more easily?
- EA-3167 3y agoI don't know, do they? I'm still waiting for someone to reply with concrete examples of systemic abuse, not this kind of emotive nonsense.
- giraffe_lady 3y agoYeah this definitely comes across as a totally neutral and curious disposition about it. Police abuses against dissidents and disinherited is widespread and well documented if you're not actively trying not to discover it. It's not other people's responsibility to do this work for you especially once you've gone out of your way to frame the very idea as "emotive nonsense."
- EA-3167 3y agoIf these systemic abuses based on technology are so easy to find, why are you and others replying to me so bad at producing them?
- giraffe_lady 3y agoBecause like I said it's not our responsibility to. You're openly hostile to the idea of them existing and no one is obligated to talk you out of the cowardice you appear happy to inhabit.
- EA-3167 3y ago[flagged]
- Georgelemental 3y ago> Because like I said it's not our responsibility to. This sort of rhetoric is absolutely poisonous and supremely counterproductive to any social movement. No cause is too righteous to require participation in the political process. If there is an issue in society that you want corrected, it's on you to persuade others to support your cause. The status quo is innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof rests on the prsopective reformer. That's how democracy has always worked!
- ok_dad 3y agoBecause we don’t have to. Our stance is that we don’t want our privacy infringed. It doesn’t matter if they used the cameras for bad things, people like me argue the mere possibility is unethical. What do gun owners want to own guns even though lots of people die from accidents, and banning guns would prevent that? Because they like the ability to not be impeded in their sport or defense. Why even have any constraints on law enforcement if they’re so trustworthy? Just let them do anything to catch criminals and trust they don’t take it too far. There are rules for a reason here, it’s to preserve ideals that society holds as a group.
- Georgelemental 3y agoThe police aren't the only ones in the equation, however. If law enforcement is completely powerless, then it's the criminals who will have free rein to violate people's rights and privacy. There is a balance to strike here, which requires open debate and deliberation.
- ok_dad 3y agoWhere are the police powerless? I’m scared shitless of getting on a cops bad side lest they find their baggie cocaine on me or something.
- Georgelemental 3y agoSouth Africa, Somalia, much of Mexico, northern Myanmar, much of Syria, Sudan, the parts of Ukraine that are occupied by Russia… lots of places in the world, where the "official" government doesn't have real control.
- ok_dad 3y agoWe’re talking about America in this thread right? I could name fictional countries if you wanted, too.
- 3y ago
- sosborn 3y agohttps://www.technologyreview.com/2022/03/03/1046676/police-surveillance-minnesota-george-floyd/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/03/03/1046676/police-s...