31–40 of 217 posts
See also the ongoing saga of what seems to be the Iranian government (literally, physically) poisoning school girls.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reminds me of the "guns don't kill people" argument. Surveillance cameras have everything to do with consolidating power into fewer and fewer hands. Therefore fewer voices of dissent on the levers of power. Iran is going through a demographic shift. The protests and strikes are evidence of a desire for change. With tools like this even small acts of defiance become higher risk.
> This reminds me of the "guns don't kill people" argument. So you're telling me if we banned cameras in Iran, women would no longer be oppressed?
I'm saying without cameras people will have more freedom to resist, in big and small ways. And with enough resistance they may enact meaningful change.
Cameras are tightening the noose on the opposition to those in power.
Morality aside, does this surprise anyone? All countries use cameras do enforce their laws, why would Iran be different? The problem here is Iran, cameras have nothing to do with it.
This kind of thing is terrifying and not worth hand waving away.
[Clearview AI nods in approval]
At this point anyone who works in the “AI” image recognition space, no matter the company, must be aware that these are some of the consequences of his/her work, there’s no avoiding it.
In fact, I would bet that most of this kind of information gathering/large scale spying is running on computers powered by Linux.
So everyone who has ever contributed to Linux must also be aware of the consequences of their work, there’s no avoiding it.
Morality aside, does this surprise anyone? All countries use cameras do enforce their laws, why would Iran be different? The problem here is Iran, cameras have nothing to do with it.
This reminds me of the "guns don't kill people" argument. Surveillance cameras have everything to do with consolidating power into fewer and fewer hands. Therefore fewer voices of dissent on the levers of power. Iran is going through a demographic shift. The protests and strikes are evidence of a desire for change. With tools like this even small acts of defiance become higher risk.
> Surveillance cameras have everything to do with consolidating power into fewer and fewer hands. Therefore fewer voices of dissent on the levers of power.
> Iran is going through a demographic shift. The protests and strikes are evidence of a desire for change. With tools like this even small acts of defiance become higher risk.
People with guns kill more people than people without guns.
Oppressive governments with cameras oppress more people than oppressive governments without cameras.
I think you and I agree that it's a matter of degree.
But in that case, why is this link interesting? And if it's not interesting, why is it in HN? I consider that "government that's well known to be very oppressive decided to take another step to increase oppression" isn't interesting.
Meanwhile, feminists in the western world fight to wear a hijab, burkha, abaya, etc. and don’t see them as signs of oppression. I wish i understood the logic. Wish we could all stand up against this together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand you're being sarcastic, but it isn't hard to realize that the compulsory veiling of women is objectively wrong. The issue is to the coercion of women and girls. Arguments about which culture is good and decent need not factor into it.
> I understand you're being sarcastic, but it isn't hard to realize that the compulsory veiling of women is objectively wrong. Just to be crystal clear here, I find this behavior as abhorrent as you do. But to claim that any human behavior is "objectively wrong" is asinine. What's "wrong" and "right" just exists in our heads.
Technology sure is useful for the autocrats. Very efficient.