Manuel_D

8 ms·

91.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
Microsoft, a company mostly centered in the Pacific Northwest, is not exactly full of right wingers: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/microsoft-corp/summary?id=d...
92.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
By this logic, Ford and Boeing were contributing to technofascism when they were building tanks and planes for the Allies in WWII. I don't think that most would agree with your understanding of technofascism.
93.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
What is this in reference to? Karp has said that US tech companies should be more willing to work with military and intelligence agencies. By that standard, though, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Booz Allen Hamilton, heck even Microsoft are all s
94.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
The question isn't whether there exists some other scenario would justify violently resisting law enforcement. Sure, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was justified even if the Nazi occupiers were acting within the bounds of German laws at
95.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
What are you astonished by? Do you think lethal force in self defense against law enforcement is justified, even when the police are conducting a lawful arrest? Let's say someone robs a liquor store at gunpoint. The police chase him do
96.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
The most convincing argument I could make is that the government could step in and keep the insurance agencies solvent. Sort of a too-big-to-fail situation.
97.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
This group showed up at the ICE facility with a dozen sets of body armor, multiple firearms, and radios. They shot fireworks at the facility, and when the law enforcement officers went to go arrest them a member of the group shot the office
98.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
The point is they're both cases where a group of people get together to carry out a criminal act of violence. The fact that only one individual actually fired the gun or tied the noose doesn't alter the fact that the group as a wh
99.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
This is just a nonsensical question. The US Revolutionary War was a war. Whether or not there were non violent protests happening contemporaneously doesn't change the fact that it was a war .
100.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
Resisting arrest isn't a justification for shooting a law enforcement officer. The law enforcement officer had a pretty solid reason to draw his firearm, given that the rioters also had firearms. I'm really baffled by the line of
101.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
No, the colonies didn't protest the rebelled . The colonies procured arms, raised an army, and fought attempts by the British to reassert control. It wasn't a protest, it was a war.
102.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
No, it's entirely viable to say a group of people did something. E.g. "a lynch mob killed ______." Sure only one member of the mob actually tied the noose, but the mob as a collective took that action.
103.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
It's shameful how the Jan 6th rioters went unpunished (well, had their punishment cut short), but it's also not good to repeat false claims. Brian Sicknick died of a stroke the next day, but the medical examiner determined that th
104.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
This was a coordinated group of people who procured body armor, radios, and firearms, and planned to break into a Federal facility. Responsibility for this incident doesn't rest exclusively on the hands of the shooter. An analogy is En
105.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
The "protestors" shot someone, if that's not the wrong way to protest then what is?
106.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
It is, and always was as straightforward as typing in the license plate number. Do you think indexing a bunch of 7vcharacter strings was beyond the capability of databases in the 2000s?
107.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
Motorola built the first national ALPR database in the mid 2000s. Again, what Flock is doing is decades old. It doesn't even look like you dispute this fact.
108.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
But nobody is being searched, and nobody is being recorded in private. The police and other organizations are observing what is plainly in public view.
109.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
> The publicized flock examples make clear that the nature and scope of the queries that can be run against modern systems are far beyond what was possible in the 90s Then how is "the nature and scope" of Flock different? You
110.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
> A few decades ago, if a police officer wanted to find the whereabouts of some individual, they would have to do some serious leg work, even with ALPRs, potentially watch many hours of videos, etc. The whole point about ALPRs is that th
111.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
Where's the basis for the claim that Flock was the first nation-wide ALPR aggregator? The source mentions that Flock aggregated data on a national level, but doesn't say that it was the first to do so. In fact it doesn't re
112.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
How do you think ALPR cameras worked during the 90s? Do you think a technician had to go through each camera individually looking for license plates? The data was aggregated and indexed even during the 90s. Some of those databases were nati
113.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
Fundamentally the right to privacy is focused around what people do in private, not things that are publicly visible. If we really think that it's an invasion of privacy to track people's vehicles, the focus should be on abolishin
114.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number-plate_recogni... > However, ANPR did not become widely used until new developments in cheaper and easier to use software were pioneered during the 1990s. The collection
115.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
To the contrary, cameras have been able to automatically read license plates since the 70s, and the technology became cheaper and more widely deployed in the 90s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number-plate_rec
116.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
What right is being taken away? Nobody ever had the right to not be recorded in public. Furthermore surveillance isn't just an all or nothing thing. For example, the government can record your activities in public without a warrant, bu
117.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
The plain view doctrine dates back to the 70s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine
118.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
Both of those two above cases involve tracking people both in public and in private. Furthermore the former involved compelling a company to fork over private information. Traffic cameras, by comparison, only record people's in public.
119.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
Because most of the American public is not as reflexively anti-Flock as HN would lead you to believe. People acting like cameras recording their activities in public is some sort of grave privacy violation are not the norm. Cameras recordin
120.
by Manuel_D 3mo ago
Correct, at least in the US you can record people in public pretty much at any time.

More ›