41–50 of 261 posts
I get the sense that most HN commenters are against having police surveil this kind of event in the U.S. Could someone share the reasons for this strong opposition? Personally, I can imagine valid reasons for and against conducting such surveillance. But given how many people feel otherwise, I wonder if I'm missing something.
wait until AI is used in hiring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first obvious point is that protesting is a constitutionally protected activity, as is any political speech on Twitter, and this is interpreted extremely widely - so why are public institutions in the business of surveilling this legal, ney protected activity? But there is more to it. Courts have long recognized that state activity that can be reasonably construed to chill exercise of ones constitutional freedoms…
> The first obvious point is that protesting is a constitutionally protected activity, as is any political speech on Twitter, and this is interpreted extremely widely - so why are public institutions in the business of surveilling this legal, ney protected activity? There are lots of things that are protected activities that I would like surveiled. Militias. The KKK. Neo-nazis. I certainly hope the FBI and other law…
This part of your comment really, really rubs me the wrong way. Your personal inclinations absolutely cannot direct the apparatus of state on a whim. Either those groups are suspected of criminal activity or conspiracy to commit criminal activity, which is probable cause for surveillance, or they aren't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first obvious point is that protesting is a constitutionally protected activity, as is any political speech on Twitter, and this is interpreted extremely widely - so why are public institutions in the business of surveilling this legal, ney protected activity? But there is more to it. Courts have long recognized that state activity that can be reasonably construed to chill exercise of ones constitutional freedoms…
Because the likelihood of protests turning violent and damaging property is high? I really don't see how we can say that protesting is a "protected activity" and yet not allow people to have an actual say in how things should be run. Almost as if we want people to think they can have a say (by protesting - yay, it's "protected"!), but not really give them an avenue to do so that is meaningful and likely to change thi…
Why not both? If your way gets better results then I'm sure people will stop the exhausting and dangerous work of protesting and civil disobedience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a charitable interpretation. For example, infiltrating groups with undercover officers goes beyond making sure that said group is "legal".
Are you opposed to the KKK being infiltrated for surveillance purposes?
the inaction toward the KKK is implicit consent toward their activities.
I’m not certain how you could draw a connection given the two groups respective statuses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a charitable interpretation. For example, infiltrating groups with undercover officers goes beyond making sure that said group is "legal".
Are you opposed to the KKK being infiltrated for surveillance purposes?
One citation of many possible regarding police malfeasance: https://theintercept.com/2020/06/02/history-united-states-go...
I get the sense that most HN commenters are against having police surveil this kind of event in the U.S. Could someone share the reasons for this strong opposition? Personally, I can imagine valid reasons for and against conducting such surveillance. But given how many people feel otherwise, I wonder if I'm missing something.
Look to your left and right. The people building this dystopia are right here on this site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you opposed to the KKK being infiltrated for surveillance purposes?
theyre not classified as a terrorist group, antifa (a far more ambiguous group) which was at the protests is . the inaction toward the KKK is implicit consent toward their activities. I’m not certain how you could draw a connection given the two groups respective statuses.
Or, alternatively, you could formulate a more nuanced criteria for when the government should or should not surveil people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you opposed to the KKK being infiltrated for surveillance purposes?
theyre not classified as a terrorist group, antifa (a far more ambiguous group) which was at the protests is . the inaction toward the KKK is implicit consent toward their activities. I’m not certain how you could draw a connection given the two groups respective statuses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you opposed to the KKK being infiltrated for surveillance purposes?
No, being that the KKK is a domestic terrorist organization. One citation of many possible regarding police malfeasance: https://theintercept.com/2020/06/02/history-united-states-go...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
theyre not classified as a terrorist group, antifa (a far more ambiguous group) which was at the protests is . the inaction toward the KKK is implicit consent toward their activities. I’m not certain how you could draw a connection given the two groups respective statuses.
My point is that they are both engaged in protected activities of free association and speech. If the standard is that the government should not surveil people engaged in those activities, then the KKK would have to be exempted too. Or, alternatively, you could formulate a more nuanced criteria for when the government should or should not surveil people.