3 ms·
> tolerating vicious verbal attacks disguised by somewhat subdued body language Two people arguing in public, words only, is close to a legal non-event in the
by ctoth 4mo ago
> tolerating vicious verbal attacks disguised by somewhat subdued body language
Two people arguing in public, words only, is close to a legal non-event in the US. So I would hope so?
- seethishat 4mo agoUntil one of them communicates a threat, then it is a criminal matter.
- stickfigure 4mo agoI don't think you're advocating to have our personal conversations continuously monitored whenever outside, but in the context of this thread, that's what it sounds like.
- nightpool 4mo agoNo, in the context of the thread it sounds like they're illustrating myrmidon's point about how the selective enforcement of crimes that are easy to catch on camera means that the police have less time (and less inclination, training, norms) for addressing more serious crimes, like interpersonal violence. More broadly, they're not saying that we should make the cameras better to catch more crime, they're saying that when you make cameras the main way you catch crime, you shift the social definition of what crime is to "what cameras can catch".
- emptybits 4mo agoPerhaps, depending on specific intent, credibility, and the nature of harm threatened. But since this is about surveillance, I hope that detection of verbal threats is not a goal of government surveillance because it's difficult to imagine how that could be accomplished without significant loss of privacy or other liberties.
- saltyoldman 4mo agoI can see it in court now. Our AI monitoring system did indeed know about the threat to the building where 800 people died on Sunday. It says: " Agent: Voice to text detected: I have everything ready - all the XXX chemicals are ready in the van and I'm going to park in the 900 S Crap St now" Agent: Thread Level HIGH. Agent: Looking up local codes. Agent: Mayor signed SB-1238 in 2026 - no surveillance devices may be used for audio threat determination. Agent: Threat silenced, but logged. Judge: Oh, that makes sense. Make sure to bag and tag and bill the families for the bags. City Employee: We also know who parked the van, should we arrest them. Judge: No it looks like SB-1238 would forbid us from using this data for the purposes of arrest. I guess send them a thank you letter for testing our laws.
- ryeats 4mo agoThis is essentially the Trolley Problem.
- anigbrowl 4mo agoOh, only 800? Maybe you can pick a larger imaginary number to make me feel really guilty about not wanting to give up my rights to live free of surveillance.
- saltyoldman 4mo agoI mean yeah, but I don't need to. These cameras ARE already the result of 9/11.
- foota 4mo agoWeird justification since 9/11 was a plane hijacking, not something on the streets.
- justsomehnguy 4mo agoYou forgot the paranoia after it. Along with surrendering anything in the name of anti-terrorist measures. And protecting children.
- cucumber3732842 4mo agoPretty much everything is a crime if you do it while blacker or trashier than the local baseline.
- dmitrygr 4mo ago> then it is a criminal matter. In very limited and clearly defined ways only: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2024/08/True-Threats-Guidance-3.pdf https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites...
- myrmidon 4mo agoThe threshold for a surveillance system to affect societal norms is not necessarily "legal event", and potentially even lower than any observable reaction (from self-censorship). Just consider how algorithmic moderation can shape language (=> people using weird constructs like "to unalive", or weird metaphors in chinese), even in contexts where it would technically be unnecessary. A close US equivalent is the "cant google that, I'll end up on a list" notion. This is all quite undesirable from my point of view.