5 ms·

honest question: Why is it bad? I see that posted over and over. Right now I watch SF and LA feel like 3rd world countries. Nothing appears to be enforced. Traf

by nox101 3y ago

honest question: Why is it bad? I see that posted over and over. Right now I watch SF and LA feel like 3rd world countries. Nothing appears to be enforced. Traffic laws, car break-ins, car theft, garage break-ins, house break-ins. I'd personally choose a little less privacy if it meant less people were getting injured by drivers ignoring the traffic laws and, less people were having to shell out for all the costs associated with theft including replacing or repairing the damaged/stolen item as well as the increased insurance costs, cost that get added to everyone's insurance regardless of income level. Note: car break-in, garage break-in has both costs for the items stolen and costs to repair the car/garage/house. I don't know where to draw the line. I certainly don't want cameras in my house or looking through my windows. Nor do I want it on my computer or TV looking at what I do/view. For traffic, I kind of feel like at a minimum, if they can move the detection to the cameras and only save/transmit the violations that would be okay with me. You violated the law in a public space that affected others, your right to not be observed ends for that moment in time. Also, if I could personally send in violations I would have sent 100s by now. I see 3-8 violations every time I go out for a 30-60 minute drive. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-25/traffic-deaths-surpass-homicides-in-los-angeles https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-25/traffic-... There are similar articles for SF.

simonw 3y ago
It's bad because while you may trust the government right now, there are no guarantees that a government you do NOT trust won't be elected in the future. Also important to consider that government institutions are made up of individuals. Do you want a police officer who is the abuser in an bad domestic situation being given the power to track their partner using the resources made available to them in their work?
- hackerlight 3y ago
  > It's bad because while you may trust the government right now, there are no guarantees that a government you do NOT trust won't be elected in the future. Yes, but this ignores the reverse causality component. If people feel unsafe then the probability that a bad government gets elected goes up. Look at El Salvador. Freedom can't survive if people's basic needs (such as physical safety) aren't met. The freedom vs safety dichotomy isn't a simple spectrum. There are feedback dynamics.
chefandy 3y ago
Sadly, you should disabuse yourself of the notion that our government will only use these powers in our best interest by looking at COINTELPRO, manufactured evidence for invading Iraq, mass incarceration based on nonviolent crimes, surveilling and prosecuting rape victims who live in the wrong jurisdictions for seeking abortions, police treatment of people who speak out against them (they'll have access, too,) the red scare, etc. etc. etc. And that's entirely ignoring what we may be subject to by other governments. Even the increasing polarity between partisan political entities is concerning. If our country is run by someone comfortable with encouraging their supporters to violently put down opposition, do you want them supported by agencies that have access to this stuff? If you are, should everybody else have to be? One way I gauge where we are is to compare it to what people previously considered problematic. We've witnessed a tectonic shift in the overton window for reasonable surveillance-- each incremental change is presented as a reasonable, prudent step that a preponderance of people agree is beneficial. However, if you compiled the changes that have taken place and presented to someone from 1984, for example, they'd be understandably shocked. For people that have the correct ideas about what to believe, what to say, what to do, and how to do it according to everyone from their municipal jurisdictions to the federal government and all of it's arms, it's probably not a problem. Can we accept the government installing machinery to squash everybody else? Speeding and red light camera tickets are one thing-- they selectively capture stills of people who have likely committed a crime. Camera networks that track all cars movement by recording license plate sightings are more representative of what the future looks like. Think I'm being paranoid? It's already implemented: https://turnto10.com/news/local/providence-police-department-crime-statistics-automated-license-plate-readers-cameras-rhode-island-december-14-2022 https://turnto10.com/news/local/providence-police-department... Edit: again, if you're going to downvote me, surely you're capable of articulating your opposition in a comment, no?
- nox101 3y ago
  I didn't downvote you but if I was to guess. It's not clear what your idea is. A bad government will be bad, period. Surveillance or none. The solution is not therefore zero government. I don't think people from 1984 would be shocked at all. In fact I think the further you go back, the more surveillance. Or at least in thinking about "small towns" where everyone watches everyone else and the police know everyone in the town, people accepted that everyone knew what you were up to. As another person mentioned, people need be safe from crime. Crime has victims and those victims suffer. If your car is stolen you can't get to work and you have to replace the car. If a traffic violator crashes into you again, you can't get to work, and you have to replace your car, and you have to pay medical bills to recover, and you might be dead. Even the non-victims suffer indirectly from higher prices (to cover the crime) and higher insurance (to cover the crime). There's a balance and right now, at least in SF and LA, it seems to have shifted to "unsafe". Some amount of surveillance seems like a possible solution. As a first step, I think I'd like people to be able to send in video of infractions and have them prosecuted.

by nox101 3y ago

simonw 3y ago

It's bad because while you may trust the government right now, there are no guarantees that a government you do NOT trust won't be elected in the future. Also important to consider that government institutions are made up of individuals. Do you want a police officer who is the abuser in an bad domestic situation being given the power to track their partner using the resources made available to them in their work?

hackerlight 3y ago
> It's bad because while you may trust the government right now, there are no guarantees that a government you do NOT trust won't be elected in the future. Yes, but this ignores the reverse causality component. If people feel unsafe then the probability that a bad government gets elected goes up. Look at El Salvador. Freedom can't survive if people's basic needs (such as physical safety) aren't met. The freedom vs safety dichotomy isn't a simple spectrum. There are feedback dynamics.

chefandy 3y ago

Sadly, you should disabuse yourself of the notion that our government will only use these powers in our best interest by looking at COINTELPRO, manufactured evidence for invading Iraq, mass incarceration based on nonviolent crimes, surveilling and prosecuting rape victims who live in the wrong jurisdictions for seeking abortions, police treatment of people who speak out against them (they'll have access, too,) the red scare, etc. etc. etc. And that's entirely ignoring what we may be subject to by other governments. Even the increasing polarity between partisan political entities is concerning. If our country is run by someone comfortable with encouraging their supporters to violently put down opposition, do you want them supported by agencies that have access to this stuff? If you are, should everybody else have to be? One way I gauge where we are is to compare it to what people previously considered problematic. We've witnessed a tectonic shift in the overton window for reasonable surveillance-- each incremental change is presented as a reasonable, prudent step that a preponderance of people agree is beneficial. However, if you compiled the changes that have taken place and presented to someone from 1984, for example, they'd be understandably shocked. For people that have the correct ideas about what to believe, what to say, what to do, and how to do it according to everyone from their municipal jurisdictions to the federal government and all of it's arms, it's probably not a problem. Can we accept the government installing machinery to squash everybody else? Speeding and red light camera tickets are one thing-- they selectively capture stills of people who have likely committed a crime. Camera networks that track all cars movement by recording license plate sightings are more representative of what the future looks like. Think I'm being paranoid? It's already implemented: https://turnto10.com/news/local/providence-police-department-crime-statistics-automated-license-plate-readers-cameras-rhode-island-december-14-2022 https://turnto10.com/news/local/providence-police-department... Edit: again, if you're going to downvote me, surely you're capable of articulating your opposition in a comment, no?

nox101 3y ago
I didn't downvote you but if I was to guess. It's not clear what your idea is. A bad government will be bad, period. Surveillance or none. The solution is not therefore zero government. I don't think people from 1984 would be shocked at all. In fact I think the further you go back, the more surveillance. Or at least in thinking about "small towns" where everyone watches everyone else and the police know everyone in the town, people accepted that everyone knew what you were up to. As another person mentioned, people need be safe from crime. Crime has victims and those victims suffer. If your car is stolen you can't get to work and you have to replace the car. If a traffic violator crashes into you again, you can't get to work, and you have to replace your car, and you have to pay medical bills to recover, and you might be dead. Even the non-victims suffer indirectly from higher prices (to cover the crime) and higher insurance (to cover the crime). There's a balance and right now, at least in SF and LA, it seems to have shifted to "unsafe". Some amount of surveillance seems like a possible solution. As a first step, I think I'd like people to be able to send in video of infractions and have them prosecuted.