4 ms·

>>everyone (even governments/corporations!) is free to observe everyone else in that same setting If you want to manually observe me in public, as in WITH A HU

by toss1 8mo ago

>>everyone (even governments/corporations!) is free to observe everyone else in that same setting If you want to manually observe me in public, as in WITH A HUMAN PERSON'S LIVING EYEBALLS, go right ahead. Even if you want to use a manually-operated still or video camera and microphone, one device per person, go ahead. Or even a radar gun operated by a human, one observer with one device. But if you start littering the entire planet with cameras and create a panopticon, even if it is absolutely in public space, that is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, and absolutely infringing on any reasonable concept of public/private space! Consider simple speeding. An ordinary person who usually follows speed limits will rarely get stopped and fined, even if they occasionally exceed a limit in an emergency or when doing the safest thing in dense traffic that is over the speed limit, match the speed of traffic. But with universal surveillance, even watching 100% in public spaces, that person in an emergency could get dozens of tickets for minor infractions. This is setting up Cardinal Richlieu's ideal tyranny: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." With a panopticon of all public spaces, any petty tyrant can find enough evidence in six minutes to imprison anyone. [0] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu

try_the_bass 8mo ago
> This is setting up Cardinal Richlieu's ideal tyranny: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." It's a good thing, then, that most criminal convictions require a jury of our peers, and not just the word of a tyrant. And that appeals exist, etc etc. > With a panopticon of all public spaces, any petty tyrant can find enough evidence in six minutes to imprison anyone. This is a blatant strawman. Said "panopticon" already exists in major areas, and this kind of abuse of power still rarely happens. It's possible to have increased surveillance come with stricter rules and increased oversight, you know. For example, it's pretty telling that Mandani, largely seen as a promising progressive candidate, has opted to change so little about the NYPD, which conducts massive city-wide surveillance, on the level of your "panopticon". Perhaps it's because he understands the benefits it provides to public safety, and is implicitly voting in confidence of its current level of oversight?
- toss1 8mo ago
  >> this kind of abuse of power still rarely happens It is not even close to "rarely happens" It happens in EVERY authoritarian state that has the technology, to BILLIONS of people around the world. It is also already happening a LOT in the US (presumably where your comment is limited to). Flock is used specifically to create parallel construction, where they observe cars moving "in a pattern" that might indicate "smuggling immigrants" such as driving from a border county, or working with pro-immigrant groups (a 100% legal activity), and local/regional police are alerted to find a pretext to stop the car, and often results in charges for someone who would otherwise never have been noticed. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This has been known for thousands of years. This type of systems are only a step away from absolute power >> most criminal convictions require a jury of our peers Tell that to the people kidnapped by ICE, with ZERO due process, based on just a sighting and tracking with a camera that matches a racial profile, then they wind up in detention and deported, or dead, with zero judicial intervention. Stop acting like this doesn't happen or the current 'administration' actually follows the rules. This administration is on the well-traveled road to corrupting democracy and implementing fascism, and systems like Flock actively help it happen. You are arguing sophistry on the wrong side of the facts, the wrong side of civil society, and the wrong side of history. Reconsider your life
  - try_the_bass 8mo ago
    > It is not even close to "rarely happens" You and I have very different definitions of "rarely", apparently. It is rare, by most definitions of "rare" (at least in the US, where I'm implicitly limiting this discussion, in general). What's yours? If your definition of "rarely" is "more than never", a) you're setting an unreasonable standard, and b) letting the lack of perfection be an easy way to discredit anyone who disagrees with you, which is intellectually lazy. I certainly agree that abuse happens! Unfortunately, that's just a fact of life. The best we can do is minimize abuse, and we should be making every effort to do so. But this does not mean reactionary banning of every new technology, regardless of the benefits it may bring. That's just reactionary conservatism, which I think (based on the rest your comment), you vehemently disagree with! > Flock is used specifically to create parallel construction, where they observe cars moving "in a pattern" that might indicate "smuggling immigrants" such as driving from a border county, or working with pro-immigrant groups (a 100% legal activity), and local/regional police are alerted to find a pretext to stop the car, and often results in charges for someone who would otherwise never have been noticed. [Citation needed]. This is certainly plausible, but is currently presented without evidence, and can likewise be dismissed without evidence. > Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Cool truism. Except we're not talking about "absolute power" by any stretch of the definition. > This type of systems are only a step away from absolute power Okay this is just bullshit and hyperbole. The rest of your comment is equally disingenuous and wildly emotional. I refuse to engage with this. Either calm down and have a real conversation, or go away. Your subsequent ad-hominems and strawmen are entirely unwarranted and uncalled-for.

by toss1 8mo ago

try_the_bass 8mo ago

> This is setting up Cardinal Richlieu's ideal tyranny: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." It's a good thing, then, that most criminal convictions require a jury of our peers, and not just the word of a tyrant. And that appeals exist, etc etc. > With a panopticon of all public spaces, any petty tyrant can find enough evidence in six minutes to imprison anyone. This is a blatant strawman. Said "panopticon" already exists in major areas, and this kind of abuse of power still rarely happens. It's possible to have increased surveillance come with stricter rules and increased oversight, you know. For example, it's pretty telling that Mandani, largely seen as a promising progressive candidate, has opted to change so little about the NYPD, which conducts massive city-wide surveillance, on the level of your "panopticon". Perhaps it's because he understands the benefits it provides to public safety, and is implicitly voting in confidence of its current level of oversight?

toss1 8mo ago
>> this kind of abuse of power still rarely happens It is not even close to "rarely happens" It happens in EVERY authoritarian state that has the technology, to BILLIONS of people around the world. It is also already happening a LOT in the US (presumably where your comment is limited to). Flock is used specifically to create parallel construction, where they observe cars moving "in a pattern" that might indicate "smuggling immigrants" such as driving from a border county, or working with pro-immigrant groups (a 100% legal activity), and local/regional police are alerted to find a pretext to stop the car, and often results in charges for someone who would otherwise never have been noticed. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This has been known for thousands of years. This type of systems are only a step away from absolute power >> most criminal convictions require a jury of our peers Tell that to the people kidnapped by ICE, with ZERO due process, based on just a sighting and tracking with a camera that matches a racial profile, then they wind up in detention and deported, or dead, with zero judicial intervention. Stop acting like this doesn't happen or the current 'administration' actually follows the rules. This administration is on the well-traveled road to corrupting democracy and implementing fascism, and systems like Flock actively help it happen. You are arguing sophistry on the wrong side of the facts, the wrong side of civil society, and the wrong side of history. Reconsider your life
- try_the_bass 8mo ago
  > It is not even close to "rarely happens" You and I have very different definitions of "rarely", apparently. It is rare, by most definitions of "rare" (at least in the US, where I'm implicitly limiting this discussion, in general). What's yours? If your definition of "rarely" is "more than never", a) you're setting an unreasonable standard, and b) letting the lack of perfection be an easy way to discredit anyone who disagrees with you, which is intellectually lazy. I certainly agree that abuse happens! Unfortunately, that's just a fact of life. The best we can do is minimize abuse, and we should be making every effort to do so. But this does not mean reactionary banning of every new technology, regardless of the benefits it may bring. That's just reactionary conservatism, which I think (based on the rest your comment), you vehemently disagree with! > Flock is used specifically to create parallel construction, where they observe cars moving "in a pattern" that might indicate "smuggling immigrants" such as driving from a border county, or working with pro-immigrant groups (a 100% legal activity), and local/regional police are alerted to find a pretext to stop the car, and often results in charges for someone who would otherwise never have been noticed. [Citation needed]. This is certainly plausible, but is currently presented without evidence, and can likewise be dismissed without evidence. > Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Cool truism. Except we're not talking about "absolute power" by any stretch of the definition. > This type of systems are only a step away from absolute power Okay this is just bullshit and hyperbole. The rest of your comment is equally disingenuous and wildly emotional. I refuse to engage with this. Either calm down and have a real conversation, or go away. Your subsequent ad-hominems and strawmen are entirely unwarranted and uncalled-for.