251–260 of 289 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In Europe in particular, police officers are not such an enemy. Everywhere in the world the police are your enemy. They exist as the manifestation of a state's domestic violence.
So we should abolish police worldwide? Or is there maybe some nuanced angle there that the state might be operating on your behalf?
When they're talking to you, they're your enemy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having grown up in Canada, this also characterizes my experience with law enforcement.
Having also grown up in Canada the parent/parent could not be more accurate. The larger your surface area the more likely you will have problems. It makes sense. Law enforcement is looking for someone to blame for crimes. You interact enough you might just fit a profile. Police never lose pay for misjudging anyone.
This is an important point.
Police are a bureaucracy with all the same incentives and problems inherent to that structure.
They are seldom penalized for being wrong (even if someone gets shot/killed as a result) but they do miss out on promotions for not closing enough cases (or writing enough citations).
Detectives under pressure will absolutely name weak suspects to achieve these ends and let the courts sort it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm just going by what Americans themselves are telling me about their country Ah, this makes sense then :) Definitely visit the US...I can tell you that the Americans who travel tend to lean heavily "liberal" in their politics (in other words, anti-police), which would explain that your perception of American life is definitely skewed in favor of this view. Note that yes, of course, we do have major problems with…
> Definitely visit the US. I would love to, as soon as the situation in the US has become a bit more sane and less xenophobic. Again, too many stories of even US residents getting denied access or getting held for hours trying to enter the country legally. However, I get my view about the US mostly from the internet. From discussions like these, from new stories, from even law enforcement experts telling people not t…
For what it's worth, I've traveled to many, many countries, and I've never encountered in real life what I expected based on the internet or stories or anything else. Our country has problems like any other but I hope you get to form a fair impression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all I want to say that I don't agree with the collection of this data. ...however there is an important distinction with Minority Report in that people were convicted of crimes based on premonitions. If this data was instead used to support at risk people - like how disruptive kids at school are often given support to help enable them to grow into better people - then I'd be more sympathetic with the motives…
The government can make your life miserable in a myriad of ways without a criminal conviction under the rubric of "public safety" or other measures that technically do not count as punishments, but nevertheless have the effect of punishment. If all that is necessary is for the cops to adjudge you "at risk", that can easily devolve into a Judge Dredd situation wherein responding officers determine guilt (or "risk") an…
So at what point would this become a net positive to society? Let's say it stops an average of 5 mass shootings a year and 200 domestic homicides, will the cost of lost privacy be worth it? I don't like the idea of systems like this, but in places like the United States where gun control and mental health treatment are off the table I don't see many other options.
Your last point is completely invalid IMO. Its doing a bad hack while not fixing the structural problems. As they say in Dutch: mopping with the tap open... Taking good options off the table for irrational reasons does not make the next best options any better.
Pitch me on how you would solve those issues in the current political climate?
First thing the site does is pop up the standard "may we please track the crap out of you" dialogs (Thank god they are required by law now to do this). There might be some irony here, I just can't put my finger on it.
Big Brother A.I is quite scary, like an evil santa, as in: "He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when yr awake, he knows if you've been bad or good; so be good! for goodness sake"
[0] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/the-n...
The Canadian social credit score
So at what point would this become a net positive to society? Let's say it stops an average of 5 mass shootings a year and 200 domestic homicides, will the cost of lost privacy be worth it? I don't like the idea of systems like this, but in places like the United States where gun control and mental health treatment are off the table I don't see many other options.
What if we move the TSA into the streets and have mandatory inspections of every home every day? We could mandate reporting on neighbors. We, too, could become a shining example of what happens when the state is primarily concerned with the welfare of its citizens, just like North Korea.
Americans already value physical privacy over digital.
Nobody is taking their guns, just their privacy, which they gave away long ago for likes.
Use the idiocy of masses for some good and maybe we can solve some real problems instead of dancing around the same old issues.
Net neutrality and digital privacy are dead, and most western countries are well on their way to becoming surveillance states.
Time to start looking towards the future and being pragmatic about the flaws we have built into our societies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In Europe in particular, police officers are not such an enemy. Everywhere in the world the police are your enemy. They exist as the manifestation of a state's domestic violence.
In a democracy, the state shouldn't be your enemy either. The state should represent you, as should the police.