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

Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

aclu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 95 posts

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#51

Post by konstruktor »

faxilux wrote: post #38
logn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this means that petty street crime, protests, rallys, etc. are being monitored but closed-door talks between politicians, lobbyists, and finance execs are not. It's directly targeting the blue-collar outdoors and protecting the white-collar. But in reality this isn't about fighting crime even. It's about making money. It's no secret that our wars our dying down. How will the drone manufacturers make money? They r…

If all privacy is forgone the politicians privacy would be dropped too. While this is of course difficult to enforce (something like Google Glasses that constantly stream? Or even implants?) it would create a society devoid of hidden intentions. Crime would be easily solved as well, and politics would be completely transparent. I am twisted on this issue, but it is definitely an interesting viewpoint to consider.

In practice, politicians will be exempt 'for security reasons'.

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#54

Post by antman »

alan_cx wrote: post #33
mc32 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It definitely has lots of possible good uses. It remains to be seen if some of the capabilities get abused and if they do whether people judge that as too high a price for the conveniences, or if they judge it to be, on the whole, worthwhile given the benefits (mostly conjecture till implemented, at this point). If they could put this along the drug routes (if they can deal with the difficulties of monitoring over wa…

I don't care what the good is. I simply don't want to be policed by robots. And yes, I object to a lot of what is already deployed, including CCTV, speed cameras, etc. I don't mind so much on private sites, but it should never happen in public space unless, IMHO, its for a limited operation of some sort. Reading your contribution makes me think you have been willingly "divided" off in to one camp. For you its border…

"If we carry on this way, it wont be long until we are all required to carry trackers so some creepy organisation can follow us 24/7 on bloody google maps..". When I read this statement I got so scared that I almost dropped my smartphone

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#55

Post by dwiel »

alan_cx wrote: post #33
mc32 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It definitely has lots of possible good uses. It remains to be seen if some of the capabilities get abused and if they do whether people judge that as too high a price for the conveniences, or if they judge it to be, on the whole, worthwhile given the benefits (mostly conjecture till implemented, at this point). If they could put this along the drug routes (if they can deal with the difficulties of monitoring over wa…

I don't care what the good is. I simply don't want to be policed by robots. And yes, I object to a lot of what is already deployed, including CCTV, speed cameras, etc. I don't mind so much on private sites, but it should never happen in public space unless, IMHO, its for a limited operation of some sort. Reading your contribution makes me think you have been willingly "divided" off in to one camp. For you its border…

Your first points about how there are well known methods for manipulating democratic will are spot on. What truly democratic will is left in a world where politicians have power to mold the democratic will that is supposed to be controlling them?

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#57

Post by maxerickson »

smackay wrote: post #29
tekromancr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if we went the completely opposite way? Forgo ALL privacy? Everyone has access to everyone else's data and metrics. If the genie is all ready out of the bottle, this might be the best outcome.

For the simple reason that not everyone you deal with is altruistic and has your best interests at heart. "anything [said] can and will be used against [the defendant] in the court of public opinion". Release of all information, without the required changes in human behaviour can only lead to self-censorship on a grand scale as people try and cover all the flaws an blemishes that might result in them not getting prom…

You are committing something like the "perfect candidate fallacy".

For a bank, making your future more predictable would likely just result in a different rate on the loan (either higher or lower, but they are interested in writing any loan that they think they can price sufficiently well).

For the job, the candidates with better measurements would likely get promoted faster, but over time, the companies with more meaningful measurements would (should?) be more profitable, and there would probably still be interesting work for people with lesser "stats". If a measurement is leading to higher profitability, there is at least one argument that it is fair.

Even for something like healthcare it shouldn't be that scary, if we (as a society) don't want predicted costs to factor into the availability of health care, then we shouldn't pretend to operate under an insurance scheme.

None of that is to say I have any desire to live in a transparent society.

Post reply on HN