Comment by estearum
3 months ago
You don't understand the logic of "there are some crime problems we're willing to accept more intrusions to solve than other crime problems?"
Seems like something virtually everyone believes, and all that changes is where they draw the line of balance between intrusion and safety.
The problem here is that the law and order politicians world wide pretty consistently follow a pattern that starts by demanding surveillance tools to fight very serious crimes and those crimes only. Once they get that, they eventually start another campaign to allow use of the tools that they now have access to for less serious crimes. After a few cycles of this, you get a massive erosion of citizen rights.
This is called "Salamitaktik" in Germany.
For anyone else interested in reading more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics
This new technology will improve existing procedures. How can you oppose it?
This new procedure will use existing technologies. How can you oppose it?
>they eventually start another campaign to allow use of the tools that they now have access to for less serious crimes.
Don't forget the part where the useful idiots cheer because "I hate street racers and package thieves" or "I hate cults and drugs" depending on the decade
People aren’t useful idiots for wanting to avoid being victims of crime. They’re rational. Stop trivializing the big negative impact street racing and theft have on people.
1 reply →
The point is that there is no actual line. There's the premise which then collects the data.
Then the data can be used for other purposes--no line prevents this.
Weird. There's an article right here showing them turning off the cameras when the line was crossed and now that data can't be used the way they don't want.
So clearly we're allowed more nuanced takes than you think.
"There's an article right here showing them turning off the cameras when the line was crossed and now that data can't be used the way they don't want."
Not exactly true. This happened after the arrests and won't affect those arrests. This also doesn't prevent ICE from installing and using Flock cameras on federal properties (like the post offices). I would also bet that they could still comb the existing data if they wanted to, hence the shutdown of the cameras on the fear that they can't keep the data safe.
2 replies →
Reactivity isn’t proactively protecting what you belief. It’s reacting to public outcry for the original premise.
4 replies →
I would hope so because no we are obviously not turning back the clock to a time when cameras did not exist. Most people kind of find surveillance cameras reassuring.
They're installing them in my mom's apartment complex after a vote.
3 replies →
"They did the thing and the public got mad so clearly they won't do it again"
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
i will never tire of the irony of a man who owned humans being lauded as a freedom fighter.
Benjamin Franklin became an abolitionist.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Slavery
1 reply →
Whatever you're doing at the moment, I'll bet somebody 200 years from now will condemn it.
It might not even take that long, at the rate we're progressing.
1 reply →
And yet every society makes exactly this trade off.
There is no such thing as avoiding this trade off entirely.
"Those (the Penn family) who would give up essential Liberty (money & power), to purchase a little temporary Safety (a veto over a taxation dispute, trying to raise money from the Penn family), deserve neither Liberty (said money & power) nor Safety (the defense that said taxed money would've bought from the present French & Indian wars)"
The context of the original quote doesn't prevent others from finding it more generally applicable or well-put.
3 replies →
> Those (the Penn family) who would give up essential Liberty
No, you've got it half-backwards.
He's saying the democratic legislature shouldn't forever give up the citizens' collective Liberty to tax the ultra-mega-rich (Penns) in exchange for a one-time Security payment from those rich near-nobles.
https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...
1 reply →