121–130 of 373 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article was written with a premise into a prompt for Claude, which then wrote the whole thing.
What do you think about the contents?
[flagged]
How about addressing the root causes of crime (i.e. poverty) instead of suppressing the symptoms by pushing crime out of politically powerful areas into politically marginalized areas? I'm not a fan of vandalism and luckily I'm living in a country where I have the law on my side when demanding that public space is not surveilled indiscriminately, but I totally understand the urge to simply take a stick to a camera th…
Eventually toll cameras and a consortium of private businesses will have this tech and then game over. Better to use this energy and legislate the behavior you want. Never let the enemy decide the terms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Better yet, dismantle them without harm and send them back with no return address. This definitely takes more effort than smashing them does. > Reduces what you can be charged with, Does it? How? There's not even a return address to show that a person sent the parts back to Flock instead of just disappearing it. > prevents Flock from getting insurance benefits How? The camera doesn't repair itself. It still takes m…
I think my choice of the word "dismantle" has caused some confusion. "Cleanly dismount, and ship back whole" is what I meant. If nothing is destroyed, they can't charge your with destruction. If the item is returned, it is not stolen. There surely will be some lesser things one could be charged with here, but I doubt they would be worth the effort and expense of a lawsuit, and unlikely to sway a jury to convict. Frus…
This isn't how the law works at all. You can absolutely still be charged with theft even if you return the item.
[flagged]
Bringing up the highest-crime city as an example is using a well-known outlier tp prove a point. Is that valid in this context? I think Flock cameras are being used not just in high-crime areas, but in many places. One would have to determine that surveillance helped with crime in these areas to make that point valid. And more importantly, one has to ask, why it's NOT being used to deter more crime in high-crime area…
By my parents house in Vallejo there is one of these cameras near a 7/11. They can finally walk there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about addressing the root causes of crime (i.e. poverty) instead of suppressing the symptoms by pushing crime out of politically powerful areas into politically marginalized areas? I'm not a fan of vandalism and luckily I'm living in a country where I have the law on my side when demanding that public space is not surveilled indiscriminately, but I totally understand the urge to simply take a stick to a camera th…
Poverty is not the root cause of crime
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For throwing the tea into the harbor. By the way -- Where do you stand on throwing tea into the harbor? And where do you stand on the legitimacy of publicly discussing throwing tea into the harbor?
[flagged]
They are in favor of public vandalism such as that which was committed by the Boston Tea Party whereas you appear to be suggesting that you are vehemently against it.
[flagged]
How we should do a double negation in HTML terms? Nor //s nor /s/s fits the bill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For throwing the tea into the harbor. By the way -- Where do you stand on throwing tea into the harbor? And where do you stand on the legitimacy of publicly discussing throwing tea into the harbor?
[flagged]