Iran Using Surveillance Cameras to Identify Women Breaking Hijab Rule | Hacker News Reader

Iran Using Surveillance Cameras to Identify Women Breaking Hijab Rule

rferl.org

Sometimes I think that new directions in electronic design are giving us more un-friedoms than freedoms.

"You liked oppression? You're going to love oppression at scale!"

Oppression 2.0? No! We're now using oppression chain! Using open leger technology, banks, education, government and employers can all participate in oppression.

Just wait for chastity tokens.

Much like guns, the technology can greatly empower the individual. But, governments can afford a lot more than individuals.

It seems similar to the censoring of free speech on the Internet and social media. Sure, the specific manifestation is different, but the basic idea of using AI to control people’s behavior seems the same to me.

I envision regional/county governments implementing something similar to this to nickle-and-dime people for smaller infractions automatically. Combine this with governments moving their currency management to crypto [1] and people could get auto-dinged for jaywalking. [2]

[1] - https://www.federalreserve.gov/central-bank-digital-currency...

[2] - https://wikiless.org/wiki/Jaywalking?lang=en

Deep-State Anti-Iran Government website:

"Radio Free Europe was created and grew in its early years through the efforts of the National Committee for a Free Europe (NCFE), an anti-communist CIA front organization that was formed by Allen Dulles in New York City in 1949."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe/Radio_Libert...

Take anything RFE/RL says with a HUGE pinch of salt.

This stands in such stark contrast to its view as a "freedom of religion" here in the USA.

Is the anti-abortion movement secular in nature?

It could be. People tend to be arguing whether it's morally right to take a life rather than whether the bible prohibits abortion.

There's certainly religious and political circle overlap, though that be caused by echo chambers and social influence.

It could be, yeah, in an alternate universe where the Evangelical and more recently, Catholic churches weren't leading the movement; where the politicians advancing anti-abortion laws weren't literally arguing that it's god's will; where the same religious activists and politicians weren't passing laws to harm LGBT youth arguing that it's god's will; where censorship and library closures weren't being enacted and justified on the basis of god's will; where there wasn't a significant proportion of politicians and even justices describing the US as a Christian state. In that universe, one could argue that the movement against women's rights wasn't based on religion. But in this universe, you must be a liar or a fool to believe such a thing.

All I'm saying is that religion isn't the only basis for being pro-abortion. The debate must still happen in a 100% secular society.

For example, why are ~50% of US men anti-abortion and only ~33% of women against abortion? Is it because men are more religious? Are 33% of women against abortion only because they are religious while 67% of women are athiests?

It's naive to think that a secular society is a unanimous one.

To give you an example, let's just consider people who support abortion: do they all agree that you should be able to abort at any point up until birth?

Opinions are a mixture of different influences. It seems fairly logical that fewer women would be against abortion since it is something they have skin in the game with. A person can be religious, but if one of their beliefs is tested by their circumstances, they might be much more flexible with it and remain inflexible with untested beliefs.

Freedom like in "book banning" ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com