3 ms·

I’m interested in how strong your reaction is to those two examples. Could you explain why those are such terrible things?

FridayoLeary 1y ago
Come on. It's blindingly obvious to anyone not used to these things why it's inherently bad. To people who live in a police state you eventually get used to such things. For example i really believe that traffic enforcement cameras are state oppression. They create more human suffering then they prevent. it's just that people are used to it so they don't protest.
- jdsnape 1y ago
  I asked because it wasn’t blindingly obvious, and I genuinely want to understand. Taking the traffic enforcement then - we’re talking about a dangerous piece of machinery that you’re allowed to operate in a public place under certain conditions in order to reduce the risk to others. One of those conditions is speed. It seems blindingly obvious to me that if a society agrees those conditions it should also enforce them?
  - FridayoLeary 1y ago
    Yes but speed cameras quickly turn into a revenue source for greedy councils. It's hard to tell how much they actually care about speeding offences and doing what they think they can get away with. As a general rule these things start with sincere intentions but often devolve into cynical exploitation. So if you weigh the benefits of speed cameras against the suffering they cause i think you would find they aren't a good thing. Getting to your original question i think many people don't trust that their face and fingerprint scans will be used in a way that would be in the publics interest. Its more likely that the authorities would find a way to use that data against you.
    - gregjor 1y ago
      How exactly do you weigh the “suffering” — I would call it inconvenience or annoyance — of traffic fines against bodily harm caused by dangerous drivers? A fine versus a hospital stay or worse?
      - FridayoLeary 1y ago
        I'm honestly not sure what the balance is, but there is a point where one bad accident is worth less then many speeding tickets. It's obvious when you think about it- otherwise the speed limit would be 20 mph everywhere. I'm really not sure where and how you draw the line but i do think we should err on the side of less surveillance. That's the predominant view on hn.
        owebmaster 1y ago
        > That's the predominant view on hn. Only in the doge side of HN > I'm honestly not sure what the balance is, but there is a point where one bad accident is worth less then many speeding tickets. No amount of speeding tickets is worth one kid killed by a drunk driver.
        atmavatar 1y ago
        >> That's the predominant view on hn. > Only in the doge side of HN That's hardly true. I'm pretty far from the doge end of the spectrum, but I want as little surveillance as possible (ideally: only via court order). You need only read about what impact a simple census question about religious affiliation had in the 1930s/40s to realize that information about yourself can very quickly be used for very dark purposes. We've already seen stories about red states using data from social media and phone apps to target women who may have gotten abortions. I can think of plenty of not so great ways red light camera data can be (and probably already is being) used for things completely outside the scope of merely automating speeding and red light crossing tickets.
        FridayoLeary 1y ago
        Did you read the article? >No amount of speeding tickets is worth one kid killed by a drunk driver. In an idealised plane of existence i agree with you, but real life is about finding the right balance.
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  > It's blindingly obvious to anyone not used to these things why it's inherently bad What, like actually enforcing laws? I live in the US and I would love a way to rein in traffic. Enforcing traffic laws is literally the best thing the police do.
  - eesmith 1y ago
    The best way to rein in traffic is to design roads for the speed you want. US roads are built to encourage speeding.

FridayoLeary 1y ago

Come on. It's blindingly obvious to anyone not used to these things why it's inherently bad. To people who live in a police state you eventually get used to such things. For example i really believe that traffic enforcement cameras are state oppression. They create more human suffering then they prevent. it's just that people are used to it so they don't protest.

jdsnape 1y ago
I asked because it wasn’t blindingly obvious, and I genuinely want to understand. Taking the traffic enforcement then - we’re talking about a dangerous piece of machinery that you’re allowed to operate in a public place under certain conditions in order to reduce the risk to others. One of those conditions is speed. It seems blindingly obvious to me that if a society agrees those conditions it should also enforce them?
- FridayoLeary 1y ago
  Yes but speed cameras quickly turn into a revenue source for greedy councils. It's hard to tell how much they actually care about speeding offences and doing what they think they can get away with. As a general rule these things start with sincere intentions but often devolve into cynical exploitation. So if you weigh the benefits of speed cameras against the suffering they cause i think you would find they aren't a good thing. Getting to your original question i think many people don't trust that their face and fingerprint scans will be used in a way that would be in the publics interest. Its more likely that the authorities would find a way to use that data against you.
  - gregjor 1y ago
    How exactly do you weigh the “suffering” — I would call it inconvenience or annoyance — of traffic fines against bodily harm caused by dangerous drivers? A fine versus a hospital stay or worse?
    - FridayoLeary 1y ago
      I'm honestly not sure what the balance is, but there is a point where one bad accident is worth less then many speeding tickets. It's obvious when you think about it- otherwise the speed limit would be 20 mph everywhere. I'm really not sure where and how you draw the line but i do think we should err on the side of less surveillance. That's the predominant view on hn.
      - owebmaster 1y ago
        > That's the predominant view on hn. Only in the doge side of HN > I'm honestly not sure what the balance is, but there is a point where one bad accident is worth less then many speeding tickets. No amount of speeding tickets is worth one kid killed by a drunk driver.
        atmavatar 1y ago
        >> That's the predominant view on hn. > Only in the doge side of HN That's hardly true. I'm pretty far from the doge end of the spectrum, but I want as little surveillance as possible (ideally: only via court order). You need only read about what impact a simple census question about religious affiliation had in the 1930s/40s to realize that information about yourself can very quickly be used for very dark purposes. We've already seen stories about red states using data from social media and phone apps to target women who may have gotten abortions. I can think of plenty of not so great ways red light camera data can be (and probably already is being) used for things completely outside the scope of merely automating speeding and red light crossing tickets.
        FridayoLeary 1y ago
        Did you read the article? >No amount of speeding tickets is worth one kid killed by a drunk driver. In an idealised plane of existence i agree with you, but real life is about finding the right balance.
MangoToupe 1y ago
> It's blindingly obvious to anyone not used to these things why it's inherently bad What, like actually enforcing laws? I live in the US and I would love a way to rein in traffic. Enforcing traffic laws is literally the best thing the police do.
- eesmith 1y ago
  The best way to rein in traffic is to design roads for the speed you want. US roads are built to encourage speeding.