4 ms·

I feel like we have an uphill battle here. Most people these days are ok with government surveillance in the name of "safety". Go to a local city council meet

I feel like we have an uphill battle here. Most people these days are ok with government surveillance in the name of "safety". Go to a local city council meeting where they are discussing automatic ticket cameras and facial recognition in public places. Most people are totally ok with that. As Ben Franklin said: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

throwway120385 3y ago
If it's someone else's liberty to put me in danger, it's not really a liberty I want to defend. Speed cameras are a pretty good example of a surveillance technology that exists because a few self-centered people rip through residential areas at high speed. These people endanger everyone around them for their own sense of enjoyment and they should be fined for that. I agree with you about facial recognition but you're absolutely wrong to apply that principal to speed cameras. I'm all for privacy but as a user of the road you have a responsibility to use it safely, and speeders are not safe users of the road. They should get ticketed as much as possible.
- jedberg 3y ago
  I agree with you in principle, but it's a fine line to walk. What about China's social credit score? It's all based on surveillance cameras that doc you points for breaking petty laws like jaywalking or littering. Yes, both are safety issues, but at what cost?
  - throwway120385 3y ago
    No it's really not a fine line. If you do something that harms someone else I think society should be able to curtail your liberty. Social credit is not really the same thing because when you speed you're increasing the likelihood of a devastating crash with another driver or a pedestrian. Having witnessed just such a thing a couple of weeks ago and having rendered aid, I can assure you there is very real harm. It is not something I will forget.
- thsksbd 3y ago
  Those speed cameras take pictures of everyone's license plate to put into a behavior database (where you go, what time, etc). Nor do they accomplish much that a speed bump doesn't accomplish more effectively.
  - throwway120385 3y ago
    I mean they can, but the burden of proof is on you to show that they do and that there is actual harm from it. I've yet to hear of a court case or warrant that was issued based on some notional speed camera database. If it's being issued on parallel construction that suggests there's some legal aspect of using those databases that prevents law enforcement from doing what you describe.
- inconceivable 3y ago
  there's a reason why speed cameras are not very common in the US - they get vandalized by shotgun or arson if they're effective. doesn't matter if you like it or not, that's the reality of the situation. they also ticket the owner of the car regardless of who is driving it, which is not very popular, to say the least.
- kortilla 3y ago
  See you fell for the standard trap by assuming you are only giving up the speeders’ liberty.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    A typical speed check camera will not register the license plates of vehicles that are not speeding.
    - kortilla 3y ago
      What do you base this on? That’s literally a treasure trove of “public data” that those companies absolutely love to sell.
thx-2718 3y ago
I'm less worried about government surveillance than I am of corporate surveillance. They're the one's actively interested in influencing our lives to give them more money.
- SllX 3y ago
  Governments are the ones interested in influencing our lives to give them more power, and for all the uncritical talk of how powerful corporations are, governments are still vastly more powerful and it’s not even close.
  - thx-2718 3y ago
    I am not talking about which has more inherent 'power'. I am talking about who is incentivized to employ intrusive surveillance to influence our lives. Which are corporations. For example look at this "free" 55" TV: https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/telly-offers-free-55-inch-tvs-but-heres-what-it-will-actually-cost-you/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/telly-offers-fr... While U.S. Government does have a lot of competing interests that makes the management and control of such a costly surveillance apparatus highly unlikely (I am not talking about just listening to communication traffic but actively trying to run private American lives). That is, there isn't a way for one party to hold control over that operation and keep it hidden to such a degree as to not risk losing that power when different people get elected. Compared to PRC there's already enough concentrated power to do an operation like that. Answer me this question: If the U.S. government had a secret national surveillance system to have control over our lives, what would they actually be influencing us to do?
    - SllX 3y ago
      And the thing you’re missing is that they are both incentivized but for different reasons. Corporations mostly just want your money. Governments seek power, or rather the officers of government seek power. > That is, there isn't a way for one party to hold control over that operation and keep it hidden to such a degree as to not risk losing that power when different people get elected. If different people get elected. You asked what people would use a surveillance fielded by the US government to do, and the answer is: take out the competition, or try to. I’m not judging whether it would be successful, that would come down to the actual facts and circumstances of such a surveillance program and the people behind it, but with such a surveillance program in place you have a much better shot than without one at holding power long enough to take out the competition. And while you’re at it, why not change the rules of the game? And then once you’ve changed the rules of the game, why not change the entire system in which the game is played? America is not exceptional in a way that would make the American public immune to this, but we are very resistant, as you have alluded to, to the US government trying in part because there is enough of us that are by disposition so extremely skeptical of anything the government wants to do for good or for ill that yeah, it wouldn’t be an easy operation to clandestinely pull off. But if someone did, they would use it to take out the competition.

throwway120385 3y ago

If it's someone else's liberty to put me in danger, it's not really a liberty I want to defend. Speed cameras are a pretty good example of a surveillance technology that exists because a few self-centered people rip through residential areas at high speed. These people endanger everyone around them for their own sense of enjoyment and they should be fined for that. I agree with you about facial recognition but you're absolutely wrong to apply that principal to speed cameras. I'm all for privacy but as a user of the road you have a responsibility to use it safely, and speeders are not safe users of the road. They should get ticketed as much as possible.

jedberg 3y ago
I agree with you in principle, but it's a fine line to walk. What about China's social credit score? It's all based on surveillance cameras that doc you points for breaking petty laws like jaywalking or littering. Yes, both are safety issues, but at what cost?
- throwway120385 3y ago
  No it's really not a fine line. If you do something that harms someone else I think society should be able to curtail your liberty. Social credit is not really the same thing because when you speed you're increasing the likelihood of a devastating crash with another driver or a pedestrian. Having witnessed just such a thing a couple of weeks ago and having rendered aid, I can assure you there is very real harm. It is not something I will forget.
thsksbd 3y ago
Those speed cameras take pictures of everyone's license plate to put into a behavior database (where you go, what time, etc). Nor do they accomplish much that a speed bump doesn't accomplish more effectively.
- throwway120385 3y ago
  I mean they can, but the burden of proof is on you to show that they do and that there is actual harm from it. I've yet to hear of a court case or warrant that was issued based on some notional speed camera database. If it's being issued on parallel construction that suggests there's some legal aspect of using those databases that prevents law enforcement from doing what you describe.
inconceivable 3y ago
there's a reason why speed cameras are not very common in the US - they get vandalized by shotgun or arson if they're effective. doesn't matter if you like it or not, that's the reality of the situation. they also ticket the owner of the car regardless of who is driving it, which is not very popular, to say the least.
kortilla 3y ago
See you fell for the standard trap by assuming you are only giving up the speeders’ liberty.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  A typical speed check camera will not register the license plates of vehicles that are not speeding.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    What do you base this on? That’s literally a treasure trove of “public data” that those companies absolutely love to sell.

thx-2718 3y ago

I'm less worried about government surveillance than I am of corporate surveillance. They're the one's actively interested in influencing our lives to give them more money.

SllX 3y ago
Governments are the ones interested in influencing our lives to give them more power, and for all the uncritical talk of how powerful corporations are, governments are still vastly more powerful and it’s not even close.
- thx-2718 3y ago
  I am not talking about which has more inherent 'power'. I am talking about who is incentivized to employ intrusive surveillance to influence our lives. Which are corporations. For example look at this "free" 55" TV: https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/telly-offers-free-55-inch-tvs-but-heres-what-it-will-actually-cost-you/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/telly-offers-fr... While U.S. Government does have a lot of competing interests that makes the management and control of such a costly surveillance apparatus highly unlikely (I am not talking about just listening to communication traffic but actively trying to run private American lives). That is, there isn't a way for one party to hold control over that operation and keep it hidden to such a degree as to not risk losing that power when different people get elected. Compared to PRC there's already enough concentrated power to do an operation like that. Answer me this question: If the U.S. government had a secret national surveillance system to have control over our lives, what would they actually be influencing us to do?
  - SllX 3y ago
    And the thing you’re missing is that they are both incentivized but for different reasons. Corporations mostly just want your money. Governments seek power, or rather the officers of government seek power. > That is, there isn't a way for one party to hold control over that operation and keep it hidden to such a degree as to not risk losing that power when different people get elected. If different people get elected. You asked what people would use a surveillance fielded by the US government to do, and the answer is: take out the competition, or try to. I’m not judging whether it would be successful, that would come down to the actual facts and circumstances of such a surveillance program and the people behind it, but with such a surveillance program in place you have a much better shot than without one at holding power long enough to take out the competition. And while you’re at it, why not change the rules of the game? And then once you’ve changed the rules of the game, why not change the entire system in which the game is played? America is not exceptional in a way that would make the American public immune to this, but we are very resistant, as you have alluded to, to the US government trying in part because there is enough of us that are by disposition so extremely skeptical of anything the government wants to do for good or for ill that yeah, it wouldn’t be an easy operation to clandestinely pull off. But if someone did, they would use it to take out the competition.