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

181–190 of 292 posts

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#181

Post by papermill »

HashThis wrote: post #98
panic wrote: post #51

Earlier 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.

This is one of the problems with money in politics. As money becomes more important in winning elections, politicians' interests align more with the "moneyed interests" rather than the voters or even the public.

The house of representatives should serve as a bulwark against "moneyed interests", but even they are being targeted and bought by money. What good is democracy if a small group of people buy all the politicians?

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#183

Post by rak00n »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #77
BrandonMarc wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to the Google. Their employees scoffed about working with the Pentagon and dropped the contract, but happily helped China build an authoritarian social-punishment system. Then denied it ... and then more details kept coming out showing Google continued working on it, just more quietly.

Many Googlers have already left Google on ethical grounds, and many more likely will in the near future. There are multiple organized groups of employees trying to enact change internally, but some who previously did that have already recognized that as futile and left, so presumably more will eventually. Google is already an extremely large company, and I think that many are only just now realizing the problems that…

I doubt that Google's options are shrinking. There aren't that many companies with similar pay scale or culture.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#184

Post by kgwxd »

booleandilemma wrote: post #141
killjoywashere wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you don't do that... You start in the burbs. Out on the periphery. "Huh ... camera 20179 doesn't work. Put in a trouble ticket." Trouble ticket goes to the bottom of the stack. Too far away for anyone to bother driving too. Eventually they see a pile of these at the bottom of the stack. If you're lucky, they decide to take a pass on option years for the project because they massively under-budgeted the maintenanc…

That just sounds like it’ll encourage criminals to operate in the burbs because there’s less surveillance. What’s so bad about cameras in public spaces anyway? Speaking as someone who had his phone stolen in a public space, I regret that there weren’t cameras around so they could’ve caught the guy.

Even with super HD video evidence, the police aren't going to spend thousands of dollars tracking down who stole your worthless phone unless you're someone of influence. And, if the footage is theirs, they're not even going to bother releasing it so you can get some kind of social justice, because that cost them time and money too.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#185

Post by millstone »

papermill wrote: post #181
HashThis wrote: post #98

Earlier 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.

This is one of the problems with money in politics. As money becomes more important in winning elections, politicians' interests align more with the "moneyed interests" rather than the voters or even the public. The house of representatives should serve as a bulwark against "moneyed interests", but even they are being targeted and bought by money. What good is democracy if a small group of people buy all the politici…

There's currently a "small donor boom" on the Democratic side (possibly Republicans too, I'm unsure). Super PACs etc are fading in importance, in this cycle at least.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#186

Post by dontbenebby »

drawnwren wrote: post #101
HashThis wrote: post #98

Earlier 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.

Your logic doesn't leave room for the possibility that there is a correlation between electability and ability to raise funds. I.e. the candidate most likely to win raises more funds and not vice versa.

>Your logic doesn't leave room for the possibility that there is a correlation between electability and ability to raise funds. I.e. the candidate most likely to win raises more funds and not vice versa.

That's circular logic. "They must be the most qualified, because they raised the most money and the person who gets elected is the one who raised the most money".

In a functioning democracy there should be a cliff where, no matter how much you spent, you cannot simply buy the election.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#187

Post by mach5 »

drawnwren wrote: post #101
HashThis wrote: post #98

Earlier 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.

Your logic doesn't leave room for the possibility that there is a correlation between electability and ability to raise funds. I.e. the candidate most likely to win raises more funds and not vice versa.

the whole notion of 'electability' is a ruse created by democrats to push voters towards politicians that agree more with the corporate wing of the party than any issues people care about. if electability was actually a thing, trump would not have won.

https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-67-the-gate-keepi...

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#188

Post by dontbenebby »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #77
BrandonMarc wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to the Google. Their employees scoffed about working with the Pentagon and dropped the contract, but happily helped China build an authoritarian social-punishment system. Then denied it ... and then more details kept coming out showing Google continued working on it, just more quietly.

Many Googlers have already left Google on ethical grounds, and many more likely will in the near future. There are multiple organized groups of employees trying to enact change internally, but some who previously did that have already recognized that as futile and left, so presumably more will eventually. Google is already an extremely large company, and I think that many are only just now realizing the problems that…

>I think that Google's available talent pool is shrinking. Many very talented engineers have left, and many new potential engineers would not want to work there. Sure, there are still plenty who do, but I would say their options are narrowing over time.

I think you overestimate how skilled you need to be to work at Google. Google has famously put people through enormous hoops to work there, regardless of the complexity the engineering the new hire will work on.

Organizations like NSA also have a negative reputation, but find plenty of people to hire. They just look outside Stanford,CMU, etc.

I suspect that as the people who don't have to work there stop applying, Google will widen it's parameters to snare in the people who have to work there.

(I've met many a person at Defcon who did a stint in the intel community because they saw it as the only path to a high paying job if you don't have an elite upbringing and don't want to directly kill people.)

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#189

Post by nomel »

_underfl0w_ wrote: post #103
mark212 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I like having the ability to speak openly about my feelings towards the government without being put on a watchlist regardless of where I am. The government != moral authority. It's very possible to do things the government wouldn't like without doing something that would be considered "amoral".

Is a right to privacy expected in public?

Regardless, the fact that there is a street light next to my house, almost over my property, which is most definitely not public, is very concerning.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#190

Post by blackflame7000 »

_underfl0w_ wrote: post #104
blackflame7000 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cameras can be at every intersection all the time and can adapt in real-time to emerging traffic patterns (ie a ballgame ending and a stadium of people hitting the road at once) as well as traffic changes over time from environmental changes

...which would required correlating what they're seeing with outside data. That's not something /inherent/ to the device. If you're going to correlate datasets, you could just as easily do it with your sports/weather data and pneumatic tube data.

A camera is cheaper and a camera can measure speed as well as slowdowns and stoppages that a tube simply can't do. A tube was the old way but if you're going to make a new device a camera makes more sense.
Post reply on HN