4 ms·

Scale is more about efficiency and cost, though. Plenty of people want more policemen patrolling the streets.

abirch 2mo ago
If we simply mandated that everyone install an app on their phone so that the government can track them scales very well. The people without the app would probably be criminals,
- fluidcruft 2mo ago
  I don't follow that... posting a police officer in everyone's house is pretty much a Third and Fourth Amendment violation and not primarily constrained by finances.
  - ffsm8 2mo ago
    Youre the one that made the intellectually dishonest argument that scale is about cost and efficiency while the discussion was about scale of the surveillance. from your point, nothing is cheaper and more efficient then mandating an app on all phones through which the governments can track everyone, and consequently whoever doesnt have it would be a criminal. it completely tracks from your argument. You may need to make the app stop tracking while theyre in the home, but thats a technicality. voila. no longer an issue according to your point
    - encoderer 2mo ago
      No it doesn’t track. In his example, observing license plates is perfectly legal without a warrant. Looking in your phone is not. These are not at all alike.
      - hnav 2mo ago
        Then it should be legal for citizens to deploy their own network that allows anybody to track any license plate?
        derektank 2mo ago
        Of course? We already have private entities doing this today. Private toll road operators such as United Bridge Partners already administers camera systems that collect license plates for toll payments. I would assume parking lot operators also do this, and private citizens could create a nonprofit network too if they wanted. Are you suggesting that people couldn’t do that for some reason?
        coredog64 2mo ago
        The challenge here is to ensure that any controls that apply to law enforcement operating their own hardware for this purpose would also apply to them obtaining this information from a third party. We don't need the mayor setting up "Totally Not The Cops, LLC" that collects this data and "sells" it to his police department to bypass warrant requirements.
        skinfaxi 2mo ago
        Is there a law against that?
      - unethical_ban 2mo ago
        Here's my rebuttal: I don't want police sitting down and writing every license plate down 24/7 on every street corner tracking my every movement. That's bad. And they don't do that now, so saying "it happens today" is false. It isn't possible for them to do that without sensors and AI everywhere. That's why using this technology is a red line.
- kbrannigan 2mo ago
  Define criminal ? In the USA Under laws like the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and 1850, an enslaved human who escaped was considered a criminal. Sheltering humans running away from slavery was also a crime . It was illegal for black Americans to learn to read and write. Seeking education made them a criminal. Buying or selling a beer made you a criminal during prohibition. Do you see how easy it is to make someone a criminal?
  - TitaRusell 2mo ago
    That's why you need to go out and vote against the Christian conservatives. Lest you wake up one day in Gilead.
autoexec 2mo ago
Spying on the American public shouldn't be cheap or efficient. We shouldn't abandon our freedom to make the fearful feel better.
- fluidcruft 2mo ago
  People either have privacy in public or they do not, but I don't know anyone who seriously claims that there's an expectation of privacy on public roads. What freedom are you talking about?
  - autoexec 2mo ago
    > People either have privacy in public or they do not Thankfully, the law isn't as overly simplistic and black and white as that. It'd be very stupid if it were. We have the ability maintain a general principal like "there's no expectation to privacy in public" and still prohibit certain things that are deemed harmful, like taking upskirt photos of people while they are in public spaces.
    - fluidcruft 2mo ago
      [flagged]
      - autoexec 2mo ago
        > Nobody is talking about cops or flock cameras taking upskirt photos. Just as we have the ability to pass laws prohibiting that specific harmful use of cameras while in public spaces, we have the ability to do something about the harmful uses of police and flock cameras while in public. The conversation is about the harms of mass surveillance and the exceptions necessary to protect the American public.
  - unethical_ban 2mo ago
    >I don't know anyone who seriously claims that there's an expectation of privacy on public roads Hello, I'm here. Practically, we do have privacy in public pre-AI. We weren't entitled to complete anonymity, but the ability to track every single person at all times was impossible. Now that AI and sensors are making it possible, people are saying "No, I don't want that to be the norm".
pc86 2mo ago
But nobody wants their minds connected and all of them to immediately be able to see, comprehend, and act on anything any of them sees. This is what a surveillance dragnet backed by AI is. The only people who want that are the ones that want to subjugate large portions of the population, or those that want those large portions subjugated even if they don't get to do it.
ambicapter 2mo ago
Yeah, bad things are easier to do when you can accomplish them more "efficiently". Thus, the moral hazard.
AngryData 2mo ago
I don't, 95% of what US cops do is harrass and extort people despite most of these people causing nobody else any concern or even a second glance or thought.
deaton 2mo ago
Sure, I'd love to have more policemen around, but I don't want large automated blanket surveillance network tracking the positions of everyone everywhere. There is a huge difference.

If we simply mandated that everyone install an app on their phone so that the government can track them scales very well. The people without the app would probably be criminals,

fluidcruft 2mo ago
I don't follow that... posting a police officer in everyone's house is pretty much a Third and Fourth Amendment violation and not primarily constrained by finances.
- ffsm8 2mo ago
  Youre the one that made the intellectually dishonest argument that scale is about cost and efficiency while the discussion was about scale of the surveillance. from your point, nothing is cheaper and more efficient then mandating an app on all phones through which the governments can track everyone, and consequently whoever doesnt have it would be a criminal. it completely tracks from your argument. You may need to make the app stop tracking while theyre in the home, but thats a technicality. voila. no longer an issue according to your point
  - encoderer 2mo ago
    No it doesn’t track. In his example, observing license plates is perfectly legal without a warrant. Looking in your phone is not. These are not at all alike.
    - hnav 2mo ago
      Then it should be legal for citizens to deploy their own network that allows anybody to track any license plate?
      - derektank 2mo ago
        Of course? We already have private entities doing this today. Private toll road operators such as United Bridge Partners already administers camera systems that collect license plates for toll payments. I would assume parking lot operators also do this, and private citizens could create a nonprofit network too if they wanted. Are you suggesting that people couldn’t do that for some reason?
        coredog64 2mo ago
        The challenge here is to ensure that any controls that apply to law enforcement operating their own hardware for this purpose would also apply to them obtaining this information from a third party. We don't need the mayor setting up "Totally Not The Cops, LLC" that collects this data and "sells" it to his police department to bypass warrant requirements.
      - skinfaxi 2mo ago
        Is there a law against that?
    - unethical_ban 2mo ago
      Here's my rebuttal: I don't want police sitting down and writing every license plate down 24/7 on every street corner tracking my every movement. That's bad. And they don't do that now, so saying "it happens today" is false. It isn't possible for them to do that without sensors and AI everywhere. That's why using this technology is a red line.
kbrannigan 2mo ago
Define criminal ? In the USA Under laws like the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and 1850, an enslaved human who escaped was considered a criminal. Sheltering humans running away from slavery was also a crime . It was illegal for black Americans to learn to read and write. Seeking education made them a criminal. Buying or selling a beer made you a criminal during prohibition. Do you see how easy it is to make someone a criminal?
- TitaRusell 2mo ago
  That's why you need to go out and vote against the Christian conservatives. Lest you wake up one day in Gilead.

autoexec 2mo ago

Spying on the American public shouldn't be cheap or efficient. We shouldn't abandon our freedom to make the fearful feel better.

fluidcruft 2mo ago
People either have privacy in public or they do not, but I don't know anyone who seriously claims that there's an expectation of privacy on public roads. What freedom are you talking about?
- autoexec 2mo ago
  > People either have privacy in public or they do not Thankfully, the law isn't as overly simplistic and black and white as that. It'd be very stupid if it were. We have the ability maintain a general principal like "there's no expectation to privacy in public" and still prohibit certain things that are deemed harmful, like taking upskirt photos of people while they are in public spaces.
  - fluidcruft 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - autoexec 2mo ago
      > Nobody is talking about cops or flock cameras taking upskirt photos. Just as we have the ability to pass laws prohibiting that specific harmful use of cameras while in public spaces, we have the ability to do something about the harmful uses of police and flock cameras while in public. The conversation is about the harms of mass surveillance and the exceptions necessary to protect the American public.
- unethical_ban 2mo ago
  >I don't know anyone who seriously claims that there's an expectation of privacy on public roads Hello, I'm here. Practically, we do have privacy in public pre-AI. We weren't entitled to complete anonymity, but the ability to track every single person at all times was impossible. Now that AI and sensors are making it possible, people are saying "No, I don't want that to be the norm".

pc86 2mo ago

But nobody wants their minds connected and all of them to immediately be able to see, comprehend, and act on anything any of them sees. This is what a surveillance dragnet backed by AI is. The only people who want that are the ones that want to subjugate large portions of the population, or those that want those large portions subjugated even if they don't get to do it.

ambicapter 2mo ago

Yeah, bad things are easier to do when you can accomplish them more "efficiently". Thus, the moral hazard.

AngryData 2mo ago

I don't, 95% of what US cops do is harrass and extort people despite most of these people causing nobody else any concern or even a second glance or thought.

deaton 2mo ago

Sure, I'd love to have more policemen around, but I don't want large automated blanket surveillance network tracking the positions of everyone everywhere. There is a huge difference.