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

Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

news.sky.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 636 posts

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#211

Post by DicIfTEx »

card_zero wrote: post #168
dathinab wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a cliche, but if you have nothing to hide, and intend to protest peacefully, why are you covering your face? because who says the state (and the people acting for it, e.g. police) are always the good guys there is a VERY long history of people being systematically harassed and persecuted for things which really shouldn't be an issue, and might not have been illegal either (but then the moment a state becomes t…

I'm thinking it through, and I've arrived at the puzzling conclusion we shouldn't make it too hard for people to break the law.

Not so puzzling; see also this classic post from Moxie Marlinspike, founder of Signal: https://moxie.org/2013/06/12/we-should-all-have-something-to...

> Over the past year, there have been a number of headline-grabbing legal changes in the US, such as the legalization of marijuana in CO and WA, as well as the legalization of same-sex marriage in a growing number of US states.

> As a majority of people in these states apparently favor these changes, advocates for the US democratic process cite these legal victories as examples of how the system can provide real freedoms to those who engage with it through lawful means. And it’s true, the bills did pass.

> What’s often overlooked, however, is that these legal victories would probably not have been possible without the ability to break the law.

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#212

Post by saaaaaam »

noqc wrote: post #38
Shank wrote: post #22

The UK is quickly deploying surveillance state technology that people once decried China for. Whether or not this is ethical or useful, I wish the hypocrisy would be acknowledged. The OSA, the Apple encryption demands, LFR, …, it’s clearly a trend. Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things?

The form of government matters a lot, when evaluating its security apparatus. I feel a lot differently about the death penalty in America than in Iran too.

Are you American, Iranian, or some other?

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#213

Post by tehjoker »

dathinab wrote: post #121
Shank wrote: post #22

The UK is quickly deploying surveillance state technology that people once decried China for. Whether or not this is ethical or useful, I wish the hypocrisy would be acknowledged. The OSA, the Apple encryption demands, LFR, …, it’s clearly a trend. Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things?

> The UK is quickly deploying surveillance state technology that people once decried China for. they always had been or at least tried, for decades by now, the only thing which had been holding them back was the EU frequently being like "no wtf UK, that is against human rights, EU law, etc." > Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things? no, and it also has a long track record of not onl…

[flagged]

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#214

Post by waterhouse »

pmarreck wrote: post #206
orra wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Must be a truly dangerous place... I don't know if you're awaee, but the number of arrests for terrorism has skyrocketed in recent months, in the UK. Sounds terrifying, until you realise people were arrested as terrorists for holding placards. (That fact is of course terrifying, but in a chilling way).

It still arguably complies with the Paradox of Tolerance. Terrorists (as well as their supporters) are intolerant and non-pluralist. Therefore, for a pluralist society to survive, it must be intolerant of one thing- intolerance.

To be sure, in the original context of Popper's writing, I believe "intolerant" meant something like "committing violence against others for disagreeing with you", and "tolerate" meant "refrain from intolerance". The full quote is below:

"Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#215

Post by thefaux »

gregorygoc wrote: post #208
pmarreck wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It still arguably complies with the Paradox of Tolerance. Terrorists (as well as their supporters) are intolerant and non-pluralist. Therefore, for a pluralist society to survive, it must be intolerant of one thing- intolerance.

It’s basic game theory. If someone is not nice to you, you have to be not nice for them.

I can't tell if this is serious or not, but I strongly disagree with this advice if it is.

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#216

Post by throwaway422432 »

temporallobe wrote: post #161
Shank wrote: post #22

The UK is quickly deploying surveillance state technology that people once decried China for. Whether or not this is ethical or useful, I wish the hypocrisy would be acknowledged. The OSA, the Apple encryption demands, LFR, …, it’s clearly a trend. Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things?

Now I understand why Black Mirror is a British show.

And Britain was Airstrip One in 1984 with most of the scenes taking place in what would have been London. Orwell definitely considered it possible that they could go that way.

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#217

Post by fao_ »

burkaman wrote: post #184
simmerup wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk didnt try the hyperloop to be altruistic He did it to kill any chance of the state improving the train/tram network so that Tesla cars would have less competition for public transport

Source: https://x.com/parismarx/status/1167410460125097990/photo/2

Archived here: https://archive.is/iBAJr

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#218

Post by dingnuts »

tehjoker wrote: post #213
dathinab wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The UK is quickly deploying surveillance state technology that people once decried China for. they always had been or at least tried, for decades by now, the only thing which had been holding them back was the EU frequently being like "no wtf UK, that is against human rights, EU law, etc." > Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things? no, and it also has a long track record of not onl…

[flagged]

It's a war, not a genocide. Gaza is under seige. Hamas should unconditionally surrender but they prefer to put their children in harm's way than to surrender.

Tell me, if this is a genocide, what has happened to all the Jews in Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan since 1950?

No, defense of Israel is the last stand of a people that has been slowly eradicated from their indigenous region for the last 80+ years.

Hamas simply needs to surrender in this round of the war they started. But they won't unless they control Jerusalem.

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#219

Post by chongli »

potato3732842 wrote: post #105
ryandrake wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the recent policy, technical leaps, and innovation around policing seem to be focused on cracking down on protesting and speech, and not really on what people would consider "fighting crime". You could get mugged on the street corner in broad daylight (or worse) and the police won't even answer your phone call, but the minute you show up on that street corner with 10 friends carrying signs and shouting, 20 office…

The purpose of the system (the police in this casse) is what it does. Always been that way, always will be. It's just a little harder to bury your head in the sand than it used to be.

The purpose of the system (the police in this casse) is what it does.

Nope. That's an ideology, not a statement of fact. It completely negates the possibility that systems can become corrupted (or simply fail) and no longer work towards their original purpose.

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#220

Post by nosignono »

coldtea wrote: post #102
josefritzishere wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Colonial powers are not entitled to that argument, it's hypocritical.

Did the people suffering the consequences of illegal immigration today performed that colonialism? Not even their ancestors at colonial times benefitted much from it: the industrial working class of Britain was in dire position despite Britain being a colonial Empire. That money and power went to the ruling classes and their middle class bootlickers.

No, but they benefitted from the colonialism and fight efforts to return those benefits to the colonized. We're not talking about something that happened thousands of years ago here.
Post reply on HN