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

Amazon Ring's lost dog ad sparks backlash amid fears of mass surveillance

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 407 posts

Re: Amazon Ring's lost dog ad sparks backlash amid fears of mass surveillance

#211

Post by dangets »

cyode wrote: post #56
mjr00 wrote: post #20

The Dark Knight was released in 2008. In that movie, Batman hijacks citizens' cellphones to track down the Joker, and it's presented as a major moral and ethical dilemma as part of the movie's overall themes. The only way Batman remains a "good guy" in the eyes of the audience is by destroying the entire thing once he's done. Crazy to think that less than two decades later, an even more powerful surveillance technolo…

Pulled from IMDB, Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox voices the consternation perfectly: > Batman: [seeing the wall of monitors for the first time at the Applied Sciences division in Wayne Enterprises] Beautiful, isn't it? > Lucius Fox: Beautiful... unethical... dangerous. You've turned every cellphone in Gotham into a microphone. > Batman: And a high-frequency generator-receiver. > Lucius Fox: You took my sonar concept an…

Go back a little bit further to another Morgan Freeman movie - Se7en (1995) and a big plot point was that it is unthinkable for big brother to be keeping records of what library books people are checking out. Times sure have changed...

Re: Amazon Ring's lost dog ad sparks backlash amid fears of mass surveillance

#212

Post by slg »

mrob wrote: post #207
slg wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think those segments were included in the movie if it wasn't to get us to question the reliability of the narrative they're presenting?

To differentiate between the potentially unreliable in-universe material and the conventional narrative of the rest. There's no on-screen evidence to justify a second level of nesting.

That confuses me because you seemingly aren't disagreeing with anything in the "unreliable in-universe material". The primary difference I see between those segments and the rest of the movie is simply tone.

Re: Amazon Ring's lost dog ad sparks backlash amid fears of mass surveillance

#213

Post by Dylan16807 »

alex43578 wrote: post #210
Dylan16807 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that goes too far, but limiting public space recordings to a camera you're operating in person would be a good starting point.

Good idea: keep the confrontational 1st amendment auditors, lose the benefits of security cameras. /s

No idea who you mean by the first group.

Security cameras are fine for filming your own property.

Re: Amazon Ring's lost dog ad sparks backlash amid fears of mass surveillance

#214

Post by FarmerPotato »

svachalek wrote: post #172
chasd00 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well aren’t both of those things crimes? I’m not a fan of mass surveillance either but maybe pick a different example.

The second is clearly not. State governments don't have jurisdiction over their residents when they are out of state.

Read about Texas.

It's a crime to leave the state to get an abortion. They can prosecute when you return home.

There have been vigilante patrols in West Texas, watching the necessary routes out of the state. The law gives any resident the grounds to turn in their neighbor for planning to get an abortion.

Re: Amazon Ring's lost dog ad sparks backlash amid fears of mass surveillance

#216

Post by mrob »

slg wrote: post #212
mrob wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To differentiate between the potentially unreliable in-universe material and the conventional narrative of the rest. There's no on-screen evidence to justify a second level of nesting.

That confuses me because you seemingly aren't disagreeing with anything in the "unreliable in-universe material". The primary difference I see between those segments and the rest of the movie is simply tone.

The tone marks the difference between epistolary narration (which by convention may be unreliable) and omniscient narration (which by convention is always reliable). I'm well aware what Paul Verhoeven intended, but he failed at conveying that intention on the screen. What we actually see is a society that's more ethical than any real world society in times of war. If Verhoeven didn't want us to believe that then he shouldn't have used the omniscient narration of a conventional action movie. Any movie that relies on external sources to convey its message has failed as a movie.

Re: Amazon Ring's lost dog ad sparks backlash amid fears of mass surveillance

#217

Post by mulmen »

janalsncm wrote: post #162
nilamo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's beside the point? Gaining security by losing freedom was always on the table. What's interesting is the cultural shift toward not caring about losing freedom.

I think it is the point: there is a balance between freedom and safety. For example, it is illegal to carry a loaded handgun onto a plane. Most people would agree that is an acceptable trade of freedom for safety. There are places with even less safety and more “freedom” than the US so people who take an absolutist view towards freedom also need to justify why the freedoms that the US does not grant are not valuable.

> I think it is the point: there is a balance between freedom and safety.

Sometimes. But freedom and security are not always opposed.

It’s possible to trade freedom for security but it’s also possible that freedom creates security. Both can be true at the same time. Surveillance, not security, is what opposes freedom. Surveillance simply trades one form of insecurity for another at the cost of freedom.

> For example, it is illegal to carry a loaded handgun onto a plane. Most people would agree that is an acceptable trade of freedom for safety.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

2A seems to make the case that the freedom to bear arms creates security. Given how history played out it’s hard to argue against. I’m not arguing we should be able to take guns on planes but 2A is an example of freedom creating security.

Re: Amazon Ring's lost dog ad sparks backlash amid fears of mass surveillance

#218

Post by alex43578 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #213
alex43578 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good idea: keep the confrontational 1st amendment auditors, lose the benefits of security cameras. /s

No idea who you mean by the first group. Security cameras are fine for filming your own property .

1st amendment auditors = confrontational streamers who deliberately take public filming to an extreme.

Any cameras are fine for recording any public property. That’s the whole idea of being in public: others can see you, you can see them, and you aren’t (shouldn’t) be doing something you wouldn’t mind being recorded. You have no expectation of privacy standing on a sidewalk.

Re: Amazon Ring's lost dog ad sparks backlash amid fears of mass surveillance

#219

Post by Lammy »

mjr00 wrote: post #20

The Dark Knight was released in 2008. In that movie, Batman hijacks citizens' cellphones to track down the Joker, and it's presented as a major moral and ethical dilemma as part of the movie's overall themes. The only way Batman remains a "good guy" in the eyes of the audience is by destroying the entire thing once he's done. Crazy to think that less than two decades later, an even more powerful surveillance technolo…

And now Palantir sells exactly this product, literally named Gotham https://www.palantir.com/platforms/gotham/

Re: Amazon Ring's lost dog ad sparks backlash amid fears of mass surveillance

#220

Post by slg »

mrob wrote: post #216
slg wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That confuses me because you seemingly aren't disagreeing with anything in the "unreliable in-universe material". The primary difference I see between those segments and the rest of the movie is simply tone.

The tone marks the difference between epistolary narration (which by convention may be unreliable) and omniscient narration (which by convention is always reliable). I'm well aware what Paul Verhoeven intended, but he failed at conveying that intention on the screen. What we actually see is a society that's more ethical than any real world society in times of war. If Verhoeven didn't want us to believe that then he s…

>I'm well aware what Paul Verhoeven intended, but he failed at conveying that intention on the screen.

Poe's law suggests that what you're asking for is impossible, there will always be people unable to read sarcasm or parody. Knowing this, I believe Verhoeven included those "Would you like to know more?" segments as the equivalent of a ;-) or /s to indicate his intent. I'm sorry to be blunt, but obviously some of us were able to understand his message so attributing your own inability to see that message on a failure of Verhoeven and not yourself comes off as self-centered.

Post reply on HN