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

Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 315 posts

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#271

Post by arcticfox »

senorjazz wrote: post #213
bamboozled wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why many Americans won’t give their guns away. Imagine (not saying it would be a good outcome), but what Hong Kong would be like right now if all citizens hard arms? Well maybe the whole thing wouldn’t have even started. But wow, it would be a very different scene. Instead it’s more a case of if the military wants to walk in and shutdown the place, it’s going to be a lot easier. Not entirely a gun rights advo…

> but what Hong Kong would be like right now if all citizens hard arms? The chinese are slowly removing democratic institutions away from the people. The people are rising up to protect them without guns. Democratic norms are slowly being eroded from the US as well. Extreme gerrymandering, electoral college / popular vote, overt foreign interference, requested foreign interference, voting irregularities, voter purges…

Republican senators in my home state (Oregon) that abandoned their posts actually threatened to shoot state troopers sent after them [1]. It's hard to say guns help democracy when they're so literally being put to use to break it.

I'm rather neutral on the issue itself, I see pros and cons, but the fact that the insane, often completely unreasonable group has lined up on one side makes me want to take the other.

[1] https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2019/06/oregon-republica...

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#273

Post by noir_lord »

eddyg wrote: post #254
jcims wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s an excellent RadioLab episode about Persistent Surveillance. The anti-crime powers it brings to a city are compelling, only overshadowed by the powers for abuse. Worth a listen IMHO: https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/eye-sky

Being able to back-track in time after a violent crime has been committed is a fantastic application of this technology.

Being able to back-track in time after a (legal) protest has been committed is a horrific application of this technology.

This is one of those "We should discuss the upside/downside before doing it" subjects.

I mean if you want to radically increase safety, just shove everyone into an 8'x12' padded box.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#274

Post by tmpa246 »

njharman wrote: post #175
t-a4550 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Today it's the war on drugs and terror. Tomorrow it's something else.” > “This train has one destination, and it's not even clear if there will be any stops along the way. To understand where we're headed, try reading the Bill of Rights with the assumption that your government knows everything there is to know about you, and where those who attempt to reveal the extent of these capabilities are imprisoned or execu…

> Who’s to say they won’t use it strictly Them. Laws passed for one reason have already routinely been applied more broadly, data collected for national security has been passed to domestic law enforcement under parallel construction. We don’t have to worry if government will abuse its power, we know they are doing it now.

> Laws passed for one reason have already routinely been applied more broadly, data collected for national security has been passed to domestic law enforcement under parallel construction.

For my own research, could you provide examples of this?

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#275

Post by mirimir »

mgamache wrote: post #248
mirimir wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. But small balloons at 15-20 km? That don't reflect much light? Seems iffy to me. But maybe so. I wasn't thinking of massive physical damage. Just nuking the FPAs. Or perhaps small rockets. But guidance systems are hugely illegal to develop. Chaff might work to mask movements temporarily. Or wildfires, I suppose. Not that anyone sane would do that.

"guidance systems are hugely illegal to develop" Curious what laws cover this? I am sure they exist, just not explored this at all. Isn't GPS a 'guidance system'?

I've seen reference in a few articles about model rocketry.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#276

Post by tmpa246 »

inflatableDodo wrote: post #218
t-a4550 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Today it's the war on drugs and terror. Tomorrow it's something else.” > “This train has one destination, and it's not even clear if there will be any stops along the way. To understand where we're headed, try reading the Bill of Rights with the assumption that your government knows everything there is to know about you, and where those who attempt to reveal the extent of these capabilities are imprisoned or execu…

>Devil’s advocate here. Who’s to say they won’t use it strictly to deter drug trafficking and terrorism? Anyone paying reasonable attention to either current events or history?

I’m afraid I haven’t been, could you help me out and provide examples?

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#277

Post by davesmith1983 »

DanBC wrote: post #250
davesmith1983 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chelsea Russell: not convicted. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921 Yes she was. It was only overturned later because she has (I believe) autism. The whole point I was making is that it should not happen in the first place. Do you think we should be dragging autistic teenage girls through court because of rap lyric posted on facebook? I think it is ridiculous. > Count Dankula: broadcast the ph…

> It was only overturned later. You realise that winning on appeal means the original conviction didn't happen right? > The video was obviously a joke First of all you claimed he was imprisoned for this, and he wasn't. This is yet another case that you don't understand that you think supports your point when it really doesn't. He had a trial. He could have used a free speech defence. He chose not to. Importantly he w…

> But he uploaded a video containing Nazi imagery while he said, more than 20 times, "Gas The Jews".

You keep on saying this because it sounds shocking to people who haven't watched the video, without the proper context it sounds bad i.e. It was clearly a joke intended to annoy his girlfriend.

I could describe the 2013 Wolfenstein games as "gruesome killing simulator that is full of nazi imagery" and without the proper context it would sound bad i.e. you are playing a guy fighting against a Nazi occupied Europe.

This is again incredibly disingenuous way to describe the video and you know it. That is why you continuously ignore the other parts of the video that explain the context. I find it pretty disgusting that you obviously know lots about the case and ignore the facts that don't fit your narrative.

This is exactly what the court did at the trial. This is why the trial was done with a magistrate and not a jury as if a jury saw it they would have probably laughed at it.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#278

Post by EliRivers »

bamboozled wrote: post #154
alex_duf wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a french person I don't see that going very well or being very effective. Now our police force (CRS) are just military and dress like robocop for any confrontation. People get hurt, the news outlets take the government side and the problems stays the same.

This is why many Americans won’t give their guns away. Imagine (not saying it would be a good outcome), but what Hong Kong would be like right now if all citizens hard arms? Well maybe the whole thing wouldn’t have even started. But wow, it would be a very different scene. Instead it’s more a case of if the military wants to walk in and shutdown the place, it’s going to be a lot easier. Not entirely a gun rights advo…

But wow, it would be a very different scene.

Possibly use of firearms by the general population against police and government in HK could have led to the simple invasion of HK by the PRC army, with shootings and executions like those that happened at the time of Tiananmen, but on a larger scale. Right now, possibly the lack of firearms is a brake on falling into this doomsday scenario. When you know the other fellow doesn't have a firearm, you don't need to shoot first.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#279

Post by CamperBob2 »

senorjazz wrote: post #213
bamboozled wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why many Americans won’t give their guns away. Imagine (not saying it would be a good outcome), but what Hong Kong would be like right now if all citizens hard arms? Well maybe the whole thing wouldn’t have even started. But wow, it would be a very different scene. Instead it’s more a case of if the military wants to walk in and shutdown the place, it’s going to be a lot easier. Not entirely a gun rights advo…

> but what Hong Kong would be like right now if all citizens hard arms? The chinese are slowly removing democratic institutions away from the people. The people are rising up to protect them without guns. Democratic norms are slowly being eroded from the US as well. Extreme gerrymandering, electoral college / popular vote, overt foreign interference, requested foreign interference, voting irregularities, voter purges…

Maybe an armed population made sense a few hundred years ago (maybe not though), but am going to have to see some working out to show it is still relevant today before being believed as an unquestionable truth.

Try taking over a Federal installation without being well-armed, and see if it goes anywhere near as well for you as it did for the Branch Dildonians.

Pro tip: cameras are almost as important as guns. Bring both.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#280

Post by CamperBob2 »

maxheadroom wrote: post #170
bamboozled wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why many Americans won’t give their guns away. Imagine (not saying it would be a good outcome), but what Hong Kong would be like right now if all citizens hard arms? Well maybe the whole thing wouldn’t have even started. But wow, it would be a very different scene. Instead it’s more a case of if the military wants to walk in and shutdown the place, it’s going to be a lot easier. Not entirely a gun rights advo…

> This is why many Americans won’t give their guns away. . ...but the way the U.S. laws are written, it's quite illegal to take up arms against or try to depose/overthrow the United States Government - no matter how totalitarian and authoritarian it might get. In fact, nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Consitution or the U.S. Code guarantees such right[s]. This is not to mention the reality that the arms controls…

In fact, nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Consitution or the U.S. Code guarantees such right[s].

Correct, it would be redundant. We have a separate foundational document devoted entirely to that right.

Post reply on HN