Hacker News Reader

Comment by infecto | Hacker News Reader

>I believe in people getting exactly the government they deserve. Just so long as its regionally voted for (which excludes national ID), you should definitely go and live there.

>I myself will stay far away from any Leopards Eating People's Faces Party areas and their "stable society."

And here is a prime example of why discourse is so hard in the modern era. Please don't create outrage where none exists. Please don't bring politics into something that is not political.

As society progresses its harder to just go with the flow and not have different types of regulation. You would expect everyone to be a rational actor, but they are not. There is a minimum level of conformity required for most functioning societies.

Happy that people disagree with my take on public surveillance but disappointed with your sense of false outrage and brashness. It so sad this is what pollutes so much of our information and discourse.

View on HN

Its not politics insomuch as its a theory of organized society. You believe in a system of control. You make a claim that control is necessary for you to be protected from irrational actors.

Instead of argue with you, because I do really think that's a hard and in depth argument, I'm telling you about those like me who don't believe control is necessary for society. So much so that I think you should be able to disagree with me, and the only limiting factor here is land/area/which society.

I predict that you will fall victim to the control you want to protect you, and can think of no better way to prove my argument than have you live it.

Typical response unfortunately. Why even stoop to such a low level of throwing shade when you have nothing intelligent to add to the matter?

Surveillance, in public, run by the government, is _not_ a political issue?

It is political in so much that it is something that should be decided by the people voting and case law. Lets be honest, thats not what I meant though and you should see that. Both sides are unfortunately polarized in their commentary as exampled by the poster I replied to. Instead of it being a discussion about privacy it devolved immediately into a go live somewhere else and throwing in a republican reference. Thats bringing in the wrong kind of politics into the conversation but lets ignore that. I identify with neither party and find it depressing when people are so polarized by either side, it becomes an immediate them vs us conversation.

I'm not sure your argument has the moral superiority you think it has.

Nobody is "creating outrage where none exists" nor are they bringing "politics into something that is not political."

We're discussing public policy around surveillance and many of us disagree with your position.

BTW, the term "Leopards Eating People's Faces Party" refers to a lot more than just Republicans - it was commonly used against Brexit supporters, as one example: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/leopards-eating-peoples-faces...

>BTW, the term "Leopards Eating People's Faces Party" refers to a lot more than just Republicans

I stopped watching politics about 5 years ago and I constantly have to fight my YouTube feed to keep it out. I've never heard that term and I'm glad I don't know what it means. It shows the political deprogramming is finally happening.

I am not so sure you understood my point. But I get it, we all have our biases.

Some people find the idea of circumventing rights (by leasing data from private companies that they'd otherwise be prohibited from collecting) outrageous. I'd also assume most people consider civil rights to be a key political issue.

You don't get to trample all over civil rights and then accuse the other side of "making it political".

Is government not allowed to put cameras in public places? Is government not allowed to collect use data from public places? I have not heard of any challenges on those grounds so is it really circumventing?

So by supporting the idea of both cameras recording in public spaces and the ability to collect data off those cameras, you’re trampling all over civil rights?

I'm no constitutional law expert, but Dragnets Bad, Warrants Good. See also: [1]

Whether the trampling is done by the one wearing the boot, the one cheering it on, or some combination of both is only of academic interest. The anti-due-process attitude is contrary to some of the most fundamental tenets of our legal system.

Q: If it weren't ethically dubious and of questionable constitutionality, why not just put cameras in the intersections themselves (which The Government certainly controls), rather than leasing spots on private lots adjacent to them? Why not extract this data from extant highway cameras (which The Government can surely access for free)?

A: Because, like a masked cartoon burglar hiding in the bushes, they don't want the public to know what they're doing, because they know what they're doing is Bad.

  [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/politics/dia-surveillance-data.html

I see quite a bit more false outrage in your statements than in the ones you're replying to. Also, on what grounds do you consider your position to be apolitical? Self-evidence?

To each their own. I am far from outraged but I guess it depends what biased lens you look at it through.

Why does a position need to be political? Of course in modern US politics, party lines are stronger than ever and by identifying strongly with a party you generally identify with certain positions. But I don't believe its true that to have a position or view of the world means you have a political position. Being political, and outraged for that matter, happens when you tell someone to go somewhere else to live or explicitly bring (by naming) politics into a discussion.

I like the idea of having cameras everywhere, along with the idea that I like all police to wear cameras to hold everyone in the interaction accountable.

>Why does a position need to be political?

Mass surveillance involves giving the government, an inherently political entity, and its partners in the private sector increased power over public life. It's hard to get a more political issue than that.

I will give up here, its political in that it involves a political entity. Its depressing that the original comment jumped to "republicans are bad" logic so quickly. I understand your bias, its immediately noticeable in all of those republican subreddits as well.

It's the topic of the discussion that makes something political, not the position or the attitude. If you are talking about the affairs of the society, if you are assuming the role of a citizen (rather than a private individual), you being political.

Oh stop it. You know what I meant, don’t be coy. The person I replied to is a clown for just saying “republicans are bad mmmkay”. I am not a republican but it’s a silly response and quite tiresome.

Leopards Eating Peoples Faces Party is a reference to the commonality of people to vote for some group to have power over others, in this case to take away their privacy via technological means, and then be surprised when that power is inevitably used against them.

Has nothing to do with Republicans. I have a problem with most power at a fundamental level. I largely side with the animals who I think should be armed to bring balance back to the world.

Might want to slow your dismissal of who exactly disagrees with you.

If I am wrong I am wrong but your language was low brow enough for me that it’s easy to misinterpret. Apologies. I am glad I get to live in America and you get to live where you do!

“Your use of flippant and glib language invalidates your points and my country is the best”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com