Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

massprivatei.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 292 posts

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#81

Post by mark212 »

noja wrote: post #27
mark212 wrote: post #21

This blog post is highly misleading and inaccurate. Access to the video is very limited and subject to strict protocols for use in investigations. And the audio recording capacity isn’t live because the City has no use for it. The SD Reader isn’t a very trustworthy source. Here’s the U-T’s extensive piece on the topic: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversatio...

Are there video camera and microphones installed city-wide on streetlights or not?

No, there aren’t. This is a few hundred cameras and it’s mostly downtown. San Diego is the eighth largest city in the US and this is a tiny fraction of the city. Evaluate it on the merits, but be clear about what’s really going on.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#82

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

tmh79 wrote: post #75
zzzcpan wrote: post #43

This is what so sad about tech, it gives those in power unprecedented abilities to control the population. Essentially heading back to slavery through technology with no way out for the slaves anymore.

On the other hand, people of color are currently living in a world of extremely corrupt police (see https://www.baltimoresun.com/year-in-review/bs-md-yir-baltim... ) and general danger, and these cameras will help keep the police and other criminals accountable.

How naive. We may not lose battles that were won a long time ago (so the state may not be as racist as it were) but don't believe that the next battle will be easier to win with so much power in the hands of the few.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#83

Post by opportune »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #78
opportune wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure Google wasn't working on a social punishment system (ie the Chinese "credit score" that's based on social factors), but a censored search engine, which is still pretty shitty but not nearly as bad as what you claim, unless I missed some big piece of news and am myself mistaken

Dragonfly allegedly is designed to associate searches with a user's phone number, which can be tied to their identity. Since China would have access to this system, it's likely searches for banned topics would be able to impact your social credit, or potentially get you disappeared in the middle of the night. https://theintercept.com/2018/09/14/google-china-prototype-l...

I didn't know that, thanks

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#84

Post by Mikeb85 »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #80
Mikeb85 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which can be changed. But won't be. GWB expanded the state's powers with the Patriot Act, Obama signed an extension and then a new version of the act when parts expired. When both sides are pro-surveillance and Americans refuse to change the system or support 3rd parties, what change can there be?

Why call them the "two sides" if there are the same? You need actual change.

Both parties then.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#85

Post by mark212 »

lysium wrote: post #35
mark212 wrote: post #21

This blog post is highly misleading and inaccurate. Access to the video is very limited and subject to strict protocols for use in investigations. And the audio recording capacity isn’t live because the City has no use for it. The SD Reader isn’t a very trustworthy source. Here’s the U-T’s extensive piece on the topic: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversatio...

It has an impact on your behavior in public no matter if the camera is on or off, because you cannot be sure.

Not to sound moralistic but if yiu wouldn’t do it while being recorded, why would you do it in public at all?

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#86

Post by mark212 »

kelnos wrote: post #62
mark212 wrote: post #21

This blog post is highly misleading and inaccurate. Access to the video is very limited and subject to strict protocols for use in investigations. And the audio recording capacity isn’t live because the City has no use for it. The SD Reader isn’t a very trustworthy source. Here’s the U-T’s extensive piece on the topic: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversatio...

I frankly do not care how limited access is, or if parts of the hardware are disabled. I do not trust governments to act transparently. There are a few telling things in the article you link to that make it clear that the government values expediency over protecting citizens' rights. The first notable one is the process: a police officer has to submit a request to view video records... but to whom? It looks like just…

“Too tantalizing to public officials”? Please explain. The city is run by nine elected members of the council. For what possible purpose would they wish to have audio recordings of street traffic?

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#87

Post by misterprime »

veryworried wrote: post #73
opportune wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you create a massive surveillance system for "good" purposes that doesn't mean someone can't later use it for nefarious purposes. One (rather primitive by modern standards) example is that Poland required people to list if they were Jewish for their national census, and then the Nazis used that list to round up and account for Jews in the holocaust. Since the US routinely violates the constitution in the name of f…

Let me tell you something: No matter what you do, evil always finds a way. And when it does, do you really want to live with the regret that you could have done more, but chose not to for fear of some imaginary future evil?

The answer is yes.

We can estimate the severity of the negative consequences of mass surveillance and censorship across the entire country or globe and compare that to the smaller number of isolated, but perhaps more severe cases of evil. We can then choose which we predict will be the better state to live in.

Here in America we do that with guns. We do that with cars. We do that with natural gas accessible in the house. We do that with electrical lines that may sometimes get damaged and kill someone.

The answer is yes, we can say that the cost of mass surveillance and censorship is too high to pay for a little safety. If that means that someone I love is killed, or my home is broken into, then so be it. It will be tragic. It will hurt. But at least we will be free.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#88

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

mark212 wrote: post #21

This blog post is highly misleading and inaccurate. Access to the video is very limited and subject to strict protocols for use in investigations. And the audio recording capacity isn’t live because the City has no use for it. The SD Reader isn’t a very trustworthy source. Here’s the U-T’s extensive piece on the topic: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversatio...

I'm sure the systems were secure so that Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning couldn't leak either.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#90

Post by 50656E6973 »

nosuchthing wrote: post #59
maxxxxx wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't defeatism. I just think there is a wave coming that's really hard to stop and I don't see anything in the current political structure that's willing to stop it.

Just because you're not interested or motivated in changing something, doesn't mean it can't be changed. City and state level political change is very malleable.

Federal power trumps state and local
Post reply on HN