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

A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

coveillance.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 339 posts

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#151

Post by thewebguyd »

smithkl42 wrote: post #130
brailsafe wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire city of Seattle seems to have been bought and paid for by basically 2 - 4 companies. Microsoft, Amazon, Boeing, ...Starbucks in year's past maybe?

If that was the case, it seems like those companies would have forced the city to clean up 10th and Jackson.

Why would they? None of the major tech companies have offices in the international district, it doesn't directly impact them. They are however at least partially responsible for the rapid gentrification and cost of living crisis in Seattle and have displaced and priced out local residents causing and continuing to worsen the problem.

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#152

Post by HeWhoLurksLate »

shortstuffsushi wrote: post #48
superbyte wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Usually, I'd say this sort of comment is not really contributing much to the conversation, but in this case I agree with the sentiment. With a lot of these posts about the surveillance tech that's becoming increasingly prominent everywhere in the public, there are a lot of commenters here that seem to be of the opinion that "this is fine, as long as you have nothing to hide, there's nothing lost" - or worse in this c…

It's all fun and games until you're wrongly in the spotlight for something menial you thought nothing of at the time

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#153

Post by rafram »

bmitch3020 wrote: post #126
fny wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your forgetting the nonsense a defense attorney will conjure. How do you know he didn't buy the car from the thief? We had a similar issue with the hit and run of my grandfather: even though video evidence found the car and later saw the suspect leave the car, the detectives worried a defence attorney would argue someone else may have been driving at the time the accident (e.g his wife), and therefore "beyond reasona…

> How do you know he didn't buy the car from the thief? If you're caught with stolen property, particularly a vehicle that has a title, I think the burden is on you to prove you thought you bought the car legitimately. Show a bill-of-sale, signed title, or any other evidence of a transaction. Particularly when that evidence includes identifying information of the seller.

This is a misunderstanding of the American justice system at the most basic level. The burden is never on the defendant to prove their innocence. If the prosecution can’t prove that you stole it or knew it was stolen when you bought it, you aren’t guilty.

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#154

Post by Stefan-H »

bonoboTP wrote: post #35
Stefan-H wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What came to mind is a camera pointed at the cash register tells a very different story than the camera pointed at the ATM, or pointing from the ATM for that matter. Placement and the stories behind them offer interesting perspectives on what the observers are trying to catch or deter.

Do you mean trying to catch employee theft vs theft by externals? Why can't you write plainly instead of in riddles?

You are asking me why I can't write plainly, but I believe you're confusing me for the author, but I'll answer you anyways. "Plain" language removes nuance. Example: "She sat on the chair". The number of ways that action can be described are as innumerable as the ways it can be done, and then some - as different people may describe an act in different ways. Communication in all forms is lossy, but you can convey more than just direct ideas by adding subtext or using language that draws the reader to make comparisons new comparisons. Perhaps the author used gaze to anthropomorphize the camera to add on the layer of judgement or shame that the camera conveys, perhaps to an employee that is not trusted to manage a till.

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#155

Post by brendoelfrendo »

nostromo wrote: post #72

I think this is just the new normal. My car was stolen in Seattle and it was found with the person driving it when he was pulled over by police. In the car he had paperwork with his name on it, a weapon, and his work uniform in the trunk with a name badge (he was a security guard - lol) along with a neighborhood witness. Despite a mountain of evidence, the prosecutors declined to press charges because without direct…

Ok, so, what was the evidence he was the one who stole the car?

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#156

Post by daedrdev »

ProllyInfamous wrote: post #142
daedrdev wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of people in prisons in the US are incarcerated for violent crime. 64% of violent criminals are rearrested compared to 40% of nonviolent criminals. It really looks like the US is being somewhat efficient here and just has a lot of crime.

In my hope that violent criminals serve longer sentences than nonviolent criminals , perhaps there is a correlation between time-served and recidivism..? Living in a workingclass neighborhood, many of my most-favorite neighbors are felons of the nonviolent variety – nobody wants back in to their old prisonplanet – just keep looking forwards.

Theres obviously going to be a correlation, but it may be because the state effectively gives more evil criminals longer sentences

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#158

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

bmitch3020 wrote: post #126
fny wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your forgetting the nonsense a defense attorney will conjure. How do you know he didn't buy the car from the thief? We had a similar issue with the hit and run of my grandfather: even though video evidence found the car and later saw the suspect leave the car, the detectives worried a defence attorney would argue someone else may have been driving at the time the accident (e.g his wife), and therefore "beyond reasona…

> How do you know he didn't buy the car from the thief? If you're caught with stolen property, particularly a vehicle that has a title, I think the burden is on you to prove you thought you bought the car legitimately. Show a bill-of-sale, signed title, or any other evidence of a transaction. Particularly when that evidence includes identifying information of the seller.

The property is subject to forfeit ('caveat emptor' in law), but you have to be proven criminal beyond any reasonable doubt.

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#159

Post by monkpit »

tencentshill wrote: post #42
shermantanktop wrote: post #11

Lots of po-mo art-school language on this site about “encoding ways of seeing” and “gazes.” The content itself is somewhat interesting but imo plain language would be more accessible.

It's a very strange mix of overexplaining basic concepts and in-depth details. I suspect AI.

I also suspected this to be partially AI, especially when it says the cameras can “change height”?? And the vague images, like the one with the red “hotspots”.

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#160

Post by runjake »

nostromo wrote: post #72

I think this is just the new normal. My car was stolen in Seattle and it was found with the person driving it when he was pulled over by police. In the car he had paperwork with his name on it, a weapon, and his work uniform in the trunk with a name badge (he was a security guard - lol) along with a neighborhood witness. Despite a mountain of evidence, the prosecutors declined to press charges because without direct…

If you're wondering what is being discussed in the meetings about whether or not more surveillance should be deployed, at the city and county levels, this is it.

Crime isn't being prosecuted, the criminals know it, and this breeds more crime (and more criminals). Even when they are imprisoned and incarcerated, they're probably in jail for somewhere between 24 hours and a few weeks. They know pretty much everyone else in jail, so it's almost like going to a camp reunion for them.

There used to be BOLO "be on the look out" lists with grids of mugshots passed around various informal circles so that businesses and organizations can better protect themselves from crime. But, mugshots are no longer public, so they can't even do that anymore. It ends up creating more profiling of a person based on their appearance.

And... more surveillance.

Post reply on HN