3 ms·

The problem is not in surveillance. The problem is: "we will kill you if you decline to go to jail for doing aerial photography". That's what the law says. The

The problem is not in surveillance. The problem is: "we will kill you if you decline to go to jail for doing aerial photography". That's what the law says. The surveillance is secondary.

mimiflynn 14y ago
Kill? I read that it would be a Class A Misdemeanor.
- kevingadd 14y ago
  If you reject their attempts to assert control over the path and processing of photons, eventually they will attempt to incarcerate you. They will do this with increasing degrees of force if you continue to resist. Eventually this resistance is classified as enough of a 'threat' to justify a police officer accidentally discharging half a clip into your back while you're on the ground. In self defense, of course. At least if you live in Oakland...
  - n3rdy 14y ago
    I am loving the high concentration of anarchists in this thread, HN needs more anarchists. An uncaged mind thinks bigger than a caged one.
colanderman 14y ago
"we will kill you if you decline to go to jail for doing aerial photography" Where? What law? They're giving out the death penalty for misdemeanors now?
- ctdonath 14y ago
  There is no point at which the state is willing to say "ok, nevermind" in response to a citizen refusing to consent to punishment for violating a law. Threat of force will be escalated until you comply or die. Sure, you'll be charged with other violations in the process so the consequence will be justified within the legal system, and scenarios presented so you'll have no room for error and thus can be blamed, but in the end if you absolutely refuse to comply with punishment for so little as jaywalking you'll find yourself deceased. All laws should be enacted with asking whether such a grave (albeit extreme) consequence is preferable over not enacting that law. Prohibition of arial photography isn't.
  - colanderman 14y ago
    Refusing to comply with a law and refusing to comply with its punishment are different things. For one, passive inaction suffices (see Gandhi). For the other, you must act, at some point violently. Since your moral stance hinges on your conflation of these distinct concepts, I cannot see how it is valid.

The problem is not in surveillance. The problem is: "we will kill you if you decline to go to jail for doing aerial photography". That's what the law says. The surveillance is secondary.

mimiflynn 14y ago

Kill? I read that it would be a Class A Misdemeanor.

kevingadd 14y ago
If you reject their attempts to assert control over the path and processing of photons, eventually they will attempt to incarcerate you. They will do this with increasing degrees of force if you continue to resist. Eventually this resistance is classified as enough of a 'threat' to justify a police officer accidentally discharging half a clip into your back while you're on the ground. In self defense, of course. At least if you live in Oakland...
- n3rdy 14y ago
  I am loving the high concentration of anarchists in this thread, HN needs more anarchists. An uncaged mind thinks bigger than a caged one.

colanderman 14y ago

"we will kill you if you decline to go to jail for doing aerial photography" Where? What law? They're giving out the death penalty for misdemeanors now?

ctdonath 14y ago
There is no point at which the state is willing to say "ok, nevermind" in response to a citizen refusing to consent to punishment for violating a law. Threat of force will be escalated until you comply or die. Sure, you'll be charged with other violations in the process so the consequence will be justified within the legal system, and scenarios presented so you'll have no room for error and thus can be blamed, but in the end if you absolutely refuse to comply with punishment for so little as jaywalking you'll find yourself deceased. All laws should be enacted with asking whether such a grave (albeit extreme) consequence is preferable over not enacting that law. Prohibition of arial photography isn't.
- colanderman 14y ago
  Refusing to comply with a law and refusing to comply with its punishment are different things. For one, passive inaction suffices (see Gandhi). For the other, you must act, at some point violently. Since your moral stance hinges on your conflation of these distinct concepts, I cannot see how it is valid.