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

221–230 of 339 posts

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

#221

Post by [deleted] »

saltyoldman wrote: post #52
emptybits wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, depending on specific intent, credibility, and the nature of harm threatened. But since this is about surveillance, I hope that detection of verbal threats is not a goal of government surveillance because it's difficult to imagine how that could be accomplished without significant loss of privacy or other liberties.

I can see it in court now. Our AI monitoring system did indeed know about the threat to the building where 800 people died on Sunday. It says: " Agent: Voice to text detected: I have everything ready - all the XXX chemicals are ready in the van and I'm going to park in the 900 S Crap St now" Agent: Thread Level HIGH. Agent: Looking up local codes. Agent: Mayor signed SB-1238 in 2026 - no surveillance devices may be u…

[deleted]

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

#222

Post by sonofhans »

hitekker wrote: post #188
VohuMana wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hou…

[flagged]

Ok, I watched the video, and it’s not at all as you describe. Some guy walks closely by the bodyguard, and the bodyguard responds by shoving them through a display stand of products and onto the ground. The bodyguard was clearly the instigator of violence.

Maybe the guy said nasty stuff to the bodyguard, but I saw no contact or physical threat. It’s only bad bodyguards and bouncers that get into fights. Good ones deescalate instead, just to avoid this sort of thing, because they realize they’re guarding a political reputation as well as a person.

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

#223

Post by Permit »

reaperducer wrote: post #77
rootusrootus wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Get back to me when they find Samantha Guthrie. Nancy?

Probably. I don't follow it. All I know is that a high-profile person's mom got kidnapped and in spite of all the billions of dollars spent on surveillance technology in this country, she's vanished into thin air.

Doesn’t that mean we have an insufficient number of cameras?

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

#224

Post by loeg »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #218
mikestew wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could have just asked for a URL.

One could have been provided, or even a name to google.

Just "SF stabber mayor" would have been enough; it's fine to admit you were just extremely lazy and quick to jump to dismiss GP's claim, and apologize. It was major ish news.

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

#225

Post by loeg »

patsplat wrote: post #194
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…

The stolen property in the story in the above comment was recovered. I don’t see how this justifies more surveillance that is likely to be abused.

Do you think if stolen property is eventually recovered, in some condition, it's "no harm, no foul?" Or, maybe it would be beneficial for society if theft didn't happen in the first place?

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

#226

Post by ctoth »

saltyoldman wrote: post #52
emptybits wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, depending on specific intent, credibility, and the nature of harm threatened. But since this is about surveillance, I hope that detection of verbal threats is not a goal of government surveillance because it's difficult to imagine how that could be accomplished without significant loss of privacy or other liberties.

I can see it in court now. Our AI monitoring system did indeed know about the threat to the building where 800 people died on Sunday. It says: " Agent: Voice to text detected: I have everything ready - all the XXX chemicals are ready in the van and I'm going to park in the 900 S Crap St now" Agent: Thread Level HIGH. Agent: Looking up local codes. Agent: Mayor signed SB-1238 in 2026 - no surveillance devices may be u…

The interesting thing is how I was making a very contained point pertaining to cameras, and how cameras, which we were talking about in this thread, seeing a verbal confrontation, could not and should not make a call, because a verbal confrontation is not a legal event. You then took this into a totally different case involving ... what? hypothetical recording of a conversation between two hypothetical terrorists? To prove ... what? My point is that it is not a shortcoming of the camera that it is not making a judgement call on the thing OP was originally talking about. A verbal altercation between two people. I was not talking about a hypothetical bombing. I was not citing a specific law, I was not advocating that there should be a law, I was not advocating anything about whether or not we should ban collection of existing evidence. I was not making any of these moves. I was saying simply: a camera looking at two people in a verbal argument from far enough away that it cannot hear the conversation is not a failure of the technology. Not every negative interaction between two human beings is criminalizable.

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

#227

Post by bonoboTP »

lovich wrote: post #212
bonoboTP wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that the selection process optimizes for either liars or dumb people who are easiest to emotionally manipulate. If you appear very reflective and capable of complex thought, you're a risk. You could've said, you're open to whatever sentence, you make no prior commitment and will decide for whatever sentence is appropriate based on the court proceedings and the law as given by the judge. But they would have c…

> It seems that the selection process optimizes for either liars or dumb people who are easiest to emotionally manipulate. It does. Having expert knowledge is a deal breaker too. I actually want to serve on a jury but because I am unwilling to lie to a judge I’ve been bounced everytime when I am asked if I would believe the police testimony and I reply with “that would depend on if they were a Brady cop”

I once saw the livestream of jury selection in a big trial and read up on the whole thing and it seemed like such an obviously weak point of the whole process. The whole language around the concepts that underpin it seem totally ignorant of human psychology and pretend that humans are great at self reflection, won't hide their motivations etc. Like asking whether you're able to put aside X and Y from influencing your judgment, and if you say yes, that's good, if no, you're out.

Of course it's impossible to look into people's minds, but it's clear that the kludge is a result of historical push and pull of interests and a kind of truce and compromise they could arrive at that people still find convincing enough in the end, but also practical for the lawyers. Like, I understand this isn't easy, you don't one one highly qualified person dominate everyone else, even if just subconsciously. You want to encourage all jurors to feel that they have an equal input into the process. It's certainly not a system that's engineered for finding truth, and much more concerned with pretense in favor of the appearance of truth. A realist retort would be that pursuing a truth-finding system is only possible in utopia idealized situations, so going with the adversarial system is the best bet we have for getting some acceptable balanced compromise.

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

#228

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

loeg wrote: post #224
hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could have been provided, or even a name to google.

Just "SF stabber mayor" would have been enough; it's fine to admit you were just extremely lazy and quick to jump to dismiss GP's claim, and apologize. It was major ish news.

Major ish news /where you live/. Not globally.

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

#229

Post by esikich »

ProllyInfamous wrote: post #142
daedrdev wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of people in prisons in the US are incarcerated for violent crime. 64% of violent criminals are rearrested compared to 40% of nonviolent criminals. It really looks like the US is being somewhat efficient here and just has a lot of crime.

In my hope that violent criminals serve longer sentences than nonviolent criminals , perhaps there is a correlation between time-served and recidivism..? Living in a workingclass neighborhood, many of my most-favorite neighbors are felons of the nonviolent variety – nobody wants back in to their old prisonplanet – just keep looking forwards.

Yeah, the longer you're in, the less employable you are, and are more likely to reoffend. Our prison systems do fuckall for rehabilitation because in general, the public sentiment is "lock them up and throw away the key, I hope they get raped, prison isn't supposed to be fun". Our prison systems are basically set up amplify crime. It's good for the for profit owners, and conservatives eat up the dehumanization of it all.

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

#230

Post by mannanj »

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…

Ever think about whether maybe he bought it from someone who stole it and sold it with fake paperwork?

Not saying you don't deserve to get your vehicle back, and I'm sorry that happened to you.

Post reply on HN