Hacker News Reader

It's easy to say "This tech is dangerous and shouldn't be used.... except in this one scenario which coincidentally is a personal pet interest of mine."

Cyclists want to use it against drivers, I'm sure shop owners want to use it against robbers, and doubtlessly paranoid parents want to use it against child nappers. Why should exceptions to a ban be carved out for anybody's pet interest?

View on HN

I think this line of reasoning is dependent on your perspective. The current reality is that most places in the world have loads of private- and publicly-controlled/owned cameras observing public spaces for various reasons, and these cameras are often called upon to assist with apprehending and punishing wrongdoers.

So is it me asking for an exemption which would help law enforcement protect me and my family as we get around on foot or by bike? Or is it the drivers asking for an ongoing exemption from being asked to actually follow the laws which are supposed to apply to them?

A major difference is that robbers and child nappers don't have license plates which can easily be read for automated and fair enforcement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com