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

171–180 of 339 posts

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

#171

Post by cucumber3732842 »

jeffbee wrote: post #144
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My state recently passed a law (similar to Texas') which allows people to defend with lethal force certain property (beyond just their vehicle , which was already allowed). Tennessee-wide, it goes into effect July 1st – and is long-overdue. I live in a working-class neighborhood and we do whatever we can to keep the trouble elsewhere (i.e. not here). Wish guns didn't exist , but until they don't stay safe thugz .

What's your hypothesis on why Texas has a much higher auto theft rate than Tennessee, given that they long had the policy you seem to believe is a remedy?

After adjusting for socioeconomic factors auto theft in the US is pretty much a straight gradient based on "how quickly can it be in mexico"

Arizona, New Mexico and Socal have pretty high auto theft rates as well.

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

#172

Post by goatlover »

Bratmon wrote: post #64
shortstuffsushi wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I do not live in one of the cities that have issues with a large homeless population, so the experience is a bit lost on me That's the key experience you're missing. If you've never lived in a high-homeless/drug abuse area, you don't really understand how thoroughly draining it is on every aspect of civic life.

So the answer to a problem the police and authorities already know about is a surveillance state for everyone? How are ever more cameras going to fix the drug abuse/homlessness problem?

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

#173

Post by justsomehnguy »

foota wrote: post #165
saltyoldman wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean yeah, but I don't need to. These cameras ARE already the result of 9/11.

Weird justification since 9/11 was a plane hijacking, not something on the streets.

You forgot the paranoia after it. Along with surrendering anything in the name of anti-terrorist measures. And protecting children.

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

#174

Post by cucumber3732842 »

seethishat wrote: post #27
ctoth wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> tolerating vicious verbal attacks disguised by somewhat subdued body language Two people arguing in public, words only, is close to a legal non-event in the US. So I would hope so?

Until one of them communicates a threat, then it is a criminal matter.

Pretty much everything is a crime if you do it while blacker or trashier than the local baseline.

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

#175

Post by dmitrygr »

fny wrote: post #107
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…

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…

This is why you also charge possession of stolen property, and not only theft

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

#176

Post by dmitrygr »

seethishat wrote: post #27
ctoth wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> tolerating vicious verbal attacks disguised by somewhat subdued body language Two people arguing in public, words only, is close to a legal non-event in the US. So I would hope so?

Until one of them communicates a threat, then it is a criminal matter.

> then it is a criminal matter.

In very limited and clearly defined ways only: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites...

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

#177

Post by VohuMana »

runjake wrote: post #160
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…

Honest question, do we know why crime isn’t being prosecuted anymore?

I’ve noticed where I live this definitely seems to be the case and has a two fold effect, police aren’t even bothering to enforce laws because when they do the city/county refuses to prosecute and then criminals are getting wise to this and escalating their crimes. Previously where I live there would be violent crimes but generally in the early hours (2-4am) but in the last 5 years those same crimes have been happening more and more during the normal daytime hours (8am-7pm)

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

#178

Post by tavavex »

saltyoldman wrote: post #114
emptybits wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Appreciate the pushback, saltyoldman. Yes, we want to respond to credible threats. And, as always, courts and law enforcement can invade privacy when there's reason to believe someone is worth surveilling. But we're talking here about widespread, extremely cheap, technically easy surveillance of potentially everyone at all times. That's the endgame that some commercial and government interests have in mind. Would you…

I used to be that way. However more recently I have come to prefer security over privacy, at least where I live. I do want to make sure human, drug and weapon traffickers are not exiting off my freeway ramp. I do get the issues with what you're saying, but let's think of ways to have both. The existence of a surveillance net with safegards. In other words yes let's have the conversation to make our country secure and…

There is no way to have both. Surveillance is power and it corrupts in the same way as any other form of power. It's not just about patching some individual holes. You can't have too much of it for the same reason why you can't have a cop stationed at every single building in your city. For sure, doing that would make some people feel safer, but it would also make anyone doing something legal but disfavored by their government terrified, increase prosecutions for frivolous infractions and open the door for a future government to swoop in and make great use of all that free power lying around.

Besides, even if it was possible to do both (it's not), do you think this would ever actually happen? When it comes to surveillance, they only take and take and take and never give anything back, further encouraged by a terrified populace that wants more safety in a safer-than-ever world. It's a ratchet that only goes one way because it greatly benefits anyone vying for power in governments and businesses alike. Once you let them have it, you're not getting anything back.

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

#180

Post by reaperducer »

Fogest wrote: post #50
reaperducer wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand I understand that they have the capability of incredibly enhancing the ability for police departments to solve more crimes. Do they? There are millions of these cameras all around the country, yet when pressed about their value, Flock and cops can only point to one or two crimes prevented/solved at a time. And they're usually things like "caught a burglar after the fact," or "stopped someone from dumpster…

I've already watched many dozens of bodycam videos on YouTube where the Flock cameras we used to help track down suspects of crime, so I feel like this may just be a case of you being ignorant on the topic. You can argue on the other merits of such a system, but I think you're being a bit silly making an argument that these don't help solve crime.

dozens of bodycam videos on YouTube where the Flock cameras we used to help track down suspects of crime

In my country (United States of America), tracking down a suspect isn't the same as solving or preventing a crime. Suspects aren't criminals until found to be so in a court of law, not in the court of social media.

That you think modern surveillance tech keeps people safe because you watch dozens of social media videos doesn't mean that people are safe, it means you got sucked into the advertising.

Post reply on HN