171–180 of 265 posts
Imagine the reverse: A police department vows not to use social media to help predict where to deploy their forces to protect public safety. That sounds like malpractice. A commitment to civil rights doesn't restrict them from gathering real time public intelligence, a.k.a. situational awareness, to do their job.
Imagine the reverse: A police department vows not to use social media to help predict where to deploy their forces to protect public safety. That sounds like malpractice. A commitment to civil rights doesn't restrict them from gathering real time public intelligence, a.k.a. situational awareness, to do their job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Twitter started as TXT2MOB for organizing protests, and now it and social media have become surveillance tools Propaganda, communication and surveillance vary only inasmuch as the sender and/or receiver are coöperating. When done in public, communication necessarily empowers the other two.
What are “the other” two here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every demographic commits petty crimes and code violations at about the same rate Do you have data backing this claim? For example, homicides (that are not a subject for reporting bias) don’t follow a uniform distribution, so I would expect other crimes to also be non-uniform.
Do you know of some society in which "petty crimes and code violations" are more or less similar socially to homicides? I'd suggest pondering a comment more carefully. People mostly don't contemplate gunning someone down anywhere near as frequently or thoughtlessly as they might jaywalk, or get a speeding ticket. (though there are exceptions of course)
I think there's an ingrained sense of revulsion, in all of us that live in the cultural era that descended from Enlightenment ideals of equality for all, against the idea that there exist observable group-level differences on nearly any metric you could think of, but that doesn't make it any less true.
Here's an interesting thought about how preferential surveillance can lead to repression even when it's public and not itself acted on: 1. Every demographic commits petty crimes and code violations at about the same rate (things like parking violations and music piracy). 2. However, people who are being watched will be caught more often. 3. The end result is that people in the "wrong" crowd on average are punished mo…
> Every demographic commits petty crimes and code violations at about the same rate Do you have data backing this claim? For example, homicides (that are not a subject for reporting bias) don’t follow a uniform distribution, so I would expect other crimes to also be non-uniform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Walking down the street is not a constitutionally protected activity not that the police should monitor it without a statutory reason. Driving also isn’t. If you think different you’ll have to cite different. But assembly and expression are constitutionally protected. But back to my original question, why are the police monitoring constitutionally protected activity?
Walking down a public street absent some public safety or similar imposition is in fact a Constitutionally protected activity. It is not at all like driving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You could always make sure it could only increase and not decrease privacy or what have you. How could one "make sure" of this, and with what authority? >Similarly, the "expire every 19 years" must always be included and must never be removed. Again, says who? The constitution has expired, and with it any legal basis for such a requirement.
I don't agree with the idea (and technically by Jefferson's logic it should now be a much longer period, which shows it would need to be more flexible), but whatever process approves the new Constitution (probably involving a Supreme Court-type entity) would have to require these changes. Future Constitutions would both have "this document expires in 19 years" and "the successor of this document must include this cla…
Unless there is a massive rethink of a lot of laws we are running into a surveillance state worse than Orwell could have come up with. "No expectation of privacy in a public space" made sense when there were no databases that could record and analyze everything that's going on and people didn't live half of their lives on the internet. And tech is only going to accelerate the ease of total surveillance. I think Jeffe…
> Jefferson proposed to let the constitution expire every 19 years. I think he had a point there You want every state to come up with its own way of determining how to send delegates to a convention literally unbound by any law?
Coercion has limits.
Here's an interesting thought about how preferential surveillance can lead to repression even when it's public and not itself acted on: 1. Every demographic commits petty crimes and code violations at about the same rate (things like parking violations and music piracy). 2. However, people who are being watched will be caught more often. 3. The end result is that people in the "wrong" crowd on average are punished mo…
> Every demographic commits petty crimes and code violations at about the same rate Do you have data backing this claim? For example, homicides (that are not a subject for reporting bias) don’t follow a uniform distribution, so I would expect other crimes to also be non-uniform.
I read it as a scenario / "even if" for the presented thought experiment, not a load-bearing assertion about reality. As in the argument being made works equally well whether either way, and trying to challenge it misses the point.