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

Image Scrubber: tool for anonymizing photographs taken at protests

everestpipkin.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 410 posts

Re: Image Scrubber: tool for anonymizing photographs taken at protests

#221

Post by groby_b »

japhyr wrote: post #213
groby_b wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "president" has his thumb up his ass, because that's actually not a thing he's legally able to do. Neither is there a domestic terrorism statute, nor is there any legal authority to designate a domestic organization as a terrorist group. So, even though the "president" is pro-fascist, he's really still got his hands tied there.

> because that's actually not a thing he's legally able to do This has not helped a whole lot over the last 3.5 years. When something is illegal, but no one is willing to enforce it, the legality doesn't have much impact. This president, and the current administration, has demonstrated little regard for legality, and a clear intention to grab as much power as they can.

Yes. It's up to us to stand up to it, and letting arguments rooted in illegality stand as if they are true is not "standing up".

Force can always create realities that differ from law, but let's not accept the outcome as a foregone conclusion.

Re: Image Scrubber: tool for anonymizing photographs taken at protests

#223

Post by geofft »

westmeal wrote: post #197
artifact_44 wrote: post #184

As of today, the president is designating antifascist protestors as a terrorist organization.

Not following the news for my sanity. Was he referring to antifa or actual anti fascists?

He said "antifa," but that's a term that's about as meaningful as "Christianity" or "the free software community." There's no single, overarching organization, there's no membership rolls (individual groups that share affinity with the movement might have some idea of membership, but there's nothing beyond that), and there's even a fair bit of internal disagreement on who really counts.

The practical effect is that if you're accused of being a member of "antifa" there's no coherent way to demonstrate you aren't, and certainly people opposed to fascism, whether or not they themselves identify with the label, are going to get accused of being "antifa."

(Also, to be clear on the news, he simply said that he intends to do this in a tweet - even if it were a coherent thing to do, there is no procedure for designating domestic groups as terrorist organizations.)

Re: Image Scrubber: tool for anonymizing photographs taken at protests

#224

Post by adamsea »

downerending wrote: post #93
michaelt wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that this is a protest about cops getting away with brutality even when there's clear evidence I think "gather evidence against both sides equally" is unlikely to be convincing argument to protesters.

I doubt any criminal really wants to be captured on video. Having just watched a couple of videos this morning of "protesters" viciously kicking their unconscious victims in the head, I'm very much against the idea of anonymizing any of this.

I agree. Somebody should arrest all those protestors with shields in matching outfits that keep beating people with sticks and shooting stuff at them.

I even saw a video where one of them killed a guy while three others watched.

Re: Image Scrubber: tool for anonymizing photographs taken at protests

#225

Post by throwanem »

yters wrote: post #216
throwanem wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I don't know. Peaceful protests of police violence have been a regular feature of life here in Baltimore, thanks to our famously corrupt and racist PD, but it took the 2015 Freddie Gray protests - which occurred in the wake of the same kind of murder as was done to George Floyd, and were violent enough to garner nationwide coverage - to spark the federal investigation that led to the 2017 consent decree and the o…

I've heard the 2015 riots resulted in a stand down of the police force in Baltimore, and since then crime in the city has increased significantly. Sounds like the reason criminals are not rioting is because they won. Great for the criminals, but not great for their victims, which are probably mostly the improvished, not the affluent who can afford a replacement for the missing police. In all these riot situations, it…

Leaving aside that the next plea I hear from black Baltimore for more policing on the BPD model will absolutely be the first - I find it odd that you know so much about this, and so little about other things people have said in this thread that you also disagree with. You've asked others to cite their sources. Why be so unforthcoming with your own?

Re: Image Scrubber: tool for anonymizing photographs taken at protests

#226

Post by ssalazar »

thephyber wrote: post #215
ssalazar wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugly but beside the point. Why arent the police protecting these businesses, if looting is such a concern, rather than instigating peaceful protestors? Besides, these businesses are all insured; Im certain that Apple and Luxottica, some of the richest companies in the world, can write off the loss. By contrast, nothing will bring back George Floyd, let alone the countless black people afflicted by police brutality th…

I'm pro-protest and pro-police-accountability-reforms, but some of your logic fails. > Besides, these businesses are all insured Some of them are. But having to claim on insurance is an expensive proposition that eats into profit margins (which is extra difficult in the middle of a worldwide depression). > Im certain that Apple and Luxottica, some of the richest companies in the world, can write off the loss. Most co…

I appreciate the counterargument. I would never advocate looting, especially of small/family businesses. The part of Los Angeles where I live has been hit hard by looting this weekend, including many small businesses, and its painful to see. I would highly prefer peaceful protesting and peaceful policing. But there is really no comparison of a line item on a multibillion dollar balance sheet--the linked video is all luxury multinationals--with peoples' actual real lives. The response of "what about the looters?" is a distraction from exactly that.

Re: Image Scrubber: tool for anonymizing photographs taken at protests

#227

Post by jbay808 »

jude- wrote: post #165
jbay808 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indian independence? Martin Luther King?

In both cases, the protestors were violently attacked over and over. Also, both Ghandi and MLK were murdered for their efforts.

Yes, a peaceful protest can be violently attacked and still be a peaceful protest.

It's not required that the police be peaceful, only the protesters.

Re: Image Scrubber: tool for anonymizing photographs taken at protests

#228

Post by jbay808 »

ixtli wrote: post #172
jbay808 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indian independence? Martin Luther King?

Ghandi is the face of that movement but was just the tip of what was a very bloody revolution. It is important that we think the movement was "non-violent" such that we can point to it to dissuade people from challenging the status quo in a material way.

Would you say that his protests didn't change anything and were forgotten as soon as they were over?

Re: Image Scrubber: tool for anonymizing photographs taken at protests

#229

Post by datalus »

cheald wrote: post #192
jlokier wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are under arrest right now. One of the four officers is charged. With a lesser charge than some are calling for (third-degree instead of first-degree murder). I don't think the other three officers are under arrest right now. Some people regard them as involved and getting off too lightly so far.

First-degree is premeditated. Third-degree is depraved-heart ("murder as a result of callous disregard for the value of life"). What evidence supports a first-degree charge? If you want him to walk, charge him with first-degree. Good luck proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. The depraved-heart charge is a slam dunk, and is clearly the right one if you actually want justice.

In some, murder committed by acts such as strangulation, poisoning, or lying in wait are also treated as first-degree murder.[0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Degrees_of_murder

Re: Image Scrubber: tool for anonymizing photographs taken at protests

#230

Post by halostatue »

verdverm wrote: post #166
jlokier wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IF they are identical morally there's still a problem, because they are not identical in power. With power comes a responsibilty to be better than others, and if that's not something you can count on, which it isn't, we need to protect others.

Well they aren't equal, nor has humanity never complained about those in power... Was the police violence worse during the time of the civil rights? Were the protesters ever violent or turn to rioting? What would Dr King say about the protests?

It’s not hard to find, because he said these words in 1968 before his assassination:

“…it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear?…It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.” (“The Other America,” 1968).

Funny, it sounds just as true of 2020 America as 1968 America. https://www.history.com/news/for-martin-luther-king-jr-nonvi...

He would understand. He would probably be out there. He might try to be a calming influence—or he might act as a street medic. He might have turned as militant as Malcolm X over the last fifty years since his assassination. His tone was changing even from his 1966 Mike Wallace interview where he said:

“I contend that the cry of "black power" is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mlk-a-riot-is-the-language-of-t...

Dr King was heavily involved in protests. He did everything he could to keep his protests non-violent, but he faced extreme violence from the ~slave patrols~ white racist cops of the time. His son is on Twitter…and is being MLKsplained to by white people who consistently misunderstand what MLK said and meant.

https://twitter.com/OfficialMLK3/status/1266040838628560898 (follow the thread)

MLK’s position initially was very much the same as Michele Obama’s “When they go low, we go high”. But he never said that people should just _give in_ to the violence of the state, and so it’s pretty clear that he would not have completely condemned the protests or even the riots.

(In other words, there’s multiple MLKs, and most people—especially white people—remember the sanitized “I have a Dream” MLK that is taught to us as history. That MLK is _not_ the MLK that existed at the time of his assassination.)

Post reply on HN