4 ms·

> but the idea of an insurance company deputizing millions of cameras to perform mass surveillance to make a buck is suddenly okay because drivers that make us

> but the idea of an insurance company deputizing millions of cameras to perform mass surveillance to make a buck is suddenly okay because drivers that make us angry on the road get hurt by it. I'd word it more like drivers who put me and others around me in danger should be punished for driving recklessly.

lolinder 2y ago
Fair enough. After all, as we all know, the only reason to object to massive surveillance nets is if you're a criminal who has something to hide. Since I keep the law all that tracking and monitoring won't affect me.
- unshavedyak 2y ago
  > Fair enough. After all, as we all know, the only reason to object to massive surveillance nets is if you're a criminal who has something to hide Yea, that's the case when i'm submitting a video of a crime being committed. I also submitted video of crimes in my neighborhood being committed (home security cams), is that also an invasion of the criminals privacy?
- try_the_bass 2y ago
  I mean, you do have to admit that by objecting to "massive surveillance nets", you're actively helping criminals who have things to hide, even if you don't. If you think that's worth it, that's up to you, but you do have to admit that your position helps those with antisocial goals. You'll probably argue that "massive surveillance nets are inherently antisocial", but we both know that's not any more true than saying that "absolute freedom of speech is inherently antisocial". Arguably true, but wholly subjective.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    It's just an observation: this proposal aimed at penalizing bad drivers gets upvoted and generally supported, but proposals aimed at hunting down child pornographers get attacked as dangerous overreach. "I have nothing to hide" is an invalid argument for E2E encryption backdoors, but it's the correct way to think about a dashcam botnet. It's just an interesting insight into the collective tech consciousness.
  - akimbostrawman 2y ago
    >you do have to admit that by objecting to "massive surveillance nets", you're actively helping criminals who have things to hide This is such a disengenious gaslighting way of framing critic it would make politicians blush. I hope none of your "positions" could ever be used for anything bad ever or its your fault wether you want or not
- photochemsyn 2y ago
  Sorry about this, but a law was just passed making posting anything to a public-facing web site without prior government authorization a serious crime with a five-year forced-labor-camp sentence.

lolinder 2y ago

Fair enough. After all, as we all know, the only reason to object to massive surveillance nets is if you're a criminal who has something to hide. Since I keep the law all that tracking and monitoring won't affect me.

unshavedyak 2y ago
> Fair enough. After all, as we all know, the only reason to object to massive surveillance nets is if you're a criminal who has something to hide Yea, that's the case when i'm submitting a video of a crime being committed. I also submitted video of crimes in my neighborhood being committed (home security cams), is that also an invasion of the criminals privacy?
try_the_bass 2y ago
I mean, you do have to admit that by objecting to "massive surveillance nets", you're actively helping criminals who have things to hide, even if you don't. If you think that's worth it, that's up to you, but you do have to admit that your position helps those with antisocial goals. You'll probably argue that "massive surveillance nets are inherently antisocial", but we both know that's not any more true than saying that "absolute freedom of speech is inherently antisocial". Arguably true, but wholly subjective.
- lolinder 2y ago
  It's just an observation: this proposal aimed at penalizing bad drivers gets upvoted and generally supported, but proposals aimed at hunting down child pornographers get attacked as dangerous overreach. "I have nothing to hide" is an invalid argument for E2E encryption backdoors, but it's the correct way to think about a dashcam botnet. It's just an interesting insight into the collective tech consciousness.
- akimbostrawman 2y ago
  >you do have to admit that by objecting to "massive surveillance nets", you're actively helping criminals who have things to hide This is such a disengenious gaslighting way of framing critic it would make politicians blush. I hope none of your "positions" could ever be used for anything bad ever or its your fault wether you want or not
photochemsyn 2y ago
Sorry about this, but a law was just passed making posting anything to a public-facing web site without prior government authorization a serious crime with a five-year forced-labor-camp sentence.