Life long resident and native born San Diegan here. This is not meant to be sarcastic or dismissive but this is the City of San Diego we're talking about. City of San Diego has a pretty good history of being completely incompetent. No matter what nefarious intent that you might think the City has, they are way to incompetent to do any of it. This type of system is only useful to non-idiots.
San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance
111–120 of 292 posts
Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sort of defeatism isn't helpful. Surveillance technology doesn't sprout up from nothingness; it's built on a culture and a political/economic environment which can be changed.
US Congress doesn't represent US citizens. 84% of the time, the congress person that wins in that district raised the most money. Corporations and the wealthy provide that money to get congress people who represent THEM, not US citizens. US Congress doesn't represent US citizens. So nothing changes if moneyed interests want US citizens to live under surveillance.
Except when this correlation is wrong. Such as when Trump won with less than 60% of the money spent by Hillary Clinton.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...
Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance
#113Earlier 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.
The two-party system is a direct result of FPTP election forms.
First past the post receives a lot of criticism for
restricting options to vote for due to the idea of vote
splitting and strategic voting. This leads elections to
run into the commonly referred to "Lesser of two evils"
dilemma and ends with a 2-party system in place. With 42%
of Americans saying they identify as independent and 60%
of Americans saying the need for a new party is apparent,
it would suggest that the FPTP voting system is failing
democracy, failing Americans, and failing America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#Comparison_tabl...
Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Request what? The surveillance system? No. That said many on HN where strong proponents of it when it was announced because it was marketed as providing data the city government could use to make improvements.
Improvements to what? Serious question.
TFA said they wanted to account for parking spaces where people had vacated their parking space before their paid time was up.
That would be like McDonalds digging through the trash to account for the uneaten food.
I wonder where this kind of accounting goes on the balance sheet? Maybe part of the Richard Pryor fund?
Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
US Congress doesn't represent US citizens. 84% of the time, the congress person that wins in that district raised the most money. Corporations and the wealthy provide that money to get congress people who represent THEM, not US citizens. US Congress doesn't represent US citizens. So nothing changes if moneyed interests want US citizens to live under surveillance.
Except when this correlation is wrong. Such as when Trump won with less than 60% of the money spent by Hillary Clinton. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...
Targeted ads/disinformation campaigns are very effective
Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither votes nor courts enabled this - governments just did it, and will just do things like this without asking (nor sometimes checking). The challenge in a way is how can we ever vote for or fight against (in court) things we don't even know exist sometimes?
To be fair, the people of San Diego voted their government in. So in my view, they got what they deserved. I'm not sitting on a high horse or anything. I mean hey, I'm from Wisconsin. We're literally the nation's corruption measuring stick . But we voted our politicians in, so we deserve what's happening to us. I'm just holding San Diego to the same standard. If you hadn't voted them in, this wouldn't be happening to…
Exactly right. Keep electing the same people, same party, who always campaign on issues that they never actually solve, while they solidify and expand their power.
Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance
#117Life long resident and native born San Diegan here. This is not meant to be sarcastic or dismissive but this is the City of San Diego we're talking about. City of San Diego has a pretty good history of being completely incompetent. No matter what nefarious intent that you might think the City has, they are way to incompetent to do any of it. This type of system is only useful to non-idiots.
> No matter what nefarious intent that you might think the City has, they are way to incompetent to do any of it
They already (incompetently) shared access to real time licence plate scanning with federal agencies.
Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance
#118If you're into citywide streetlight sensor networks, Chicago undertook a huge initiative dubbed the "Array Of Things": https://arrayofthings.github.io/ It was specifically designed to not have cameras however, to assuage privacy advocates.
That very clearly has both cameras and microphones. It claims the data is local to each node, but you've only got their word about what firmware is running on each node.
Sorry, they claim it can't be scraped by the city. I guess we'll see :/
Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither votes nor courts enabled this - governments just did it, and will just do things like this without asking (nor sometimes checking). The challenge in a way is how can we ever vote for or fight against (in court) things we don't even know exist sometimes?
Courts and legislatures could stop it or regulate its use. The heart of the legal question is what aspects of domestic surveillance might be seen to violate 4th amendment protections. Thus far, "the right of people to be secure in their persons" has not been interpreted by courts in a manner that would constrain or limit surveillance in public places or the use of catch-all checkpoints. That could change with the rig…
I think the test cases would hinge upon the difference between a specific individual not having an expectation of privacy in public, versus the public in general. It's always been possible to follow an individual around and keep him under surveillance. It's never been possible to keep everybody under surveillance all at the same time.
Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why call them the "two sides" if there are the same? You need actual change.
The two-party system is a direct result of FPTP election forms. First past the post receives a lot of criticism for restricting options to vote for due to the idea of vote splitting and strategic voting. This leads elections to run into the commonly referred to "Lesser of two evils" dilemma and ends with a 2-party system in place. With 42% of Americans saying they identify as independent and 60% of Americans saying t…
Downvoted for indented text. Sorry I don't know how else to put an end to this.