"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." --Winston Churchill
U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars
231–240 of 262 posts
Re: U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a heck of an assertion. Just because there are bad people we can't know what our government does? Let's stipulate all the bad wickedness you would like me to think there is. How much of that has the actual means to threaten the US in any economically or militarily significant way? With radical transparency may find that we're harming ourselves more by overspending on security theater, and that, for all their w…
> That's a heck of an assertion. Just because there are bad people we can't know what our government does? Yes. Your intentions aren't malicious. There are many millions of people whose intentions are malicious. It takes very few of them to do you, your family, your neighbors serious harm. It shocks me how many people on this site seem to not understand that sometimes. How is it logical that a few kids in SF building…
[deleted]
Re: U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no way to reverse this. Trying to cage this with paperwork will just lead to more of the same creative interpretations à la NSA. So the rulers don't feel the rules apply to them, big surprise. With that in mind, the futility of fighting the tide, what is the next step? As the ideal solution of reversal is unavailable, we need to go with harm reduction - but what is the harm that we would reduce? Most would s…
This kind of defeatism is not helpful. Through history people were able to eventually overthrow much more brutal oppressors. The kind coercion used in western societies might appear to be more effective, but there is no reason to think that direct political action could not work. When it happens, like in the case of the occupy movement, you can see by the media reaction, how uncomfortable it is for the powerful. Your…
> Through history people were able to eventually overthrow much more brutal oppressors.
They were more brutal because they substituted brutality in lieu of these sorts of technological innovations. They couldn't spy on everyone, so they had to crucify the few opponents they could definitively catch (or some sacrificial lambs, when they couldn't.)
Not to mention, it's much easier to overthrow a brutal dictator. Your government is killing your friends, drafting your family into the military, and sending your coworkers to work camps? Hell yeah, we won't stand for that! But if your government is just quietly watching, while your family is sitting at home, with food in their fridge - will you pick up a weapon to fight against that regime? Will your friends, family, neighbors?
Re: U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no way to reverse this. Trying to cage this with paperwork will just lead to more of the same creative interpretations à la NSA. So the rulers don't feel the rules apply to them, big surprise. With that in mind, the futility of fighting the tide, what is the next step? As the ideal solution of reversal is unavailable, we need to go with harm reduction - but what is the harm that we would reduce? Most would s…
Some things the public should not be able to spy on. Using the example of the DEA, we can't have cartels knowing the identities of the DEA's informers, or when and where they're planning to make a bust. We can't have our citizens' tax records getting out of the IRS. And public relations would break down if we can't keep our allies secrets, either. Our military's plans shouldn't be made known to the enemy, of course.…
> We can't have our citizens' tax records getting out of the IRS.
Yeah it's a huge mess here in Sweden. /sarcasm
Re: U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no way to reverse this. Trying to cage this with paperwork will just lead to more of the same creative interpretations à la NSA. So the rulers don't feel the rules apply to them, big surprise. With that in mind, the futility of fighting the tide, what is the next step? As the ideal solution of reversal is unavailable, we need to go with harm reduction - but what is the harm that we would reduce? Most would s…
> There is no way to reverse this. It's easy to reverse some of this. If they're recording license plates and they or someone else will do it regardless, then stop having license plates. The justification for having them doesn't really apply to self-driving cars anyway. Your argument seems to be that you can't effectively prohibit something that technology makes practical. That clearly isn't the case -- the constitut…
or be rich like jobs was and be above the law in those mundane matters like license plates.
Re: U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I understand your statement correctly, you assert that on one will ever be falsely accused of a crime.
Funnily enough, if the entire world was recorded every second of every day it would literally be impossible to be falsely accused of a crime. This is why many states are passing laws for cops to have cameras on their glasses: it's impossible to lie if there's an uninterrupted live stream of the truth.
> Funnily enough, if the entire world was recorded every second of every day it would literally be impossible to be falsely accused of a crime
That's only true if everybody has equitable access to the recordings! Putting the keys to the castle in the hands of the people running it leads to doom.
Re: U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a heck of an assertion. Just because there are bad people we can't know what our government does? Let's stipulate all the bad wickedness you would like me to think there is. How much of that has the actual means to threaten the US in any economically or militarily significant way? With radical transparency may find that we're harming ourselves more by overspending on security theater, and that, for all their w…
> That's a heck of an assertion. Just because there are bad people we can't know what our government does? Yes. Your intentions aren't malicious. There are many millions of people whose intentions are malicious. It takes very few of them to do you, your family, your neighbors serious harm. It shocks me how many people on this site seem to not understand that sometimes. How is it logical that a few kids in SF building…
> As always technology is ahead of the government, and the professional politicians are simply not technology savvy enough to understand the implications of what they let happen.
I think you underestimate them; i would say they are full well aware of exactly the implications, and that it seems to them like their wet dreams are coming true.
> When young people start not caring about how their tech works, is when we'll end up with more of the same convenience over propriety issues we're currently dealing with.
I'm sorry, but i think this ship has already sailed. Or do you believe that currently a majority of "young people" do in fact "care about how their tech works"?
Re: U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars
#238I always found it much more interesting to consider that smart stop light sensors could read the RFID tags that are required for tires [1]. You can change your plates but how often do you change your tires? [1] http://www.rfidjournal.com/articles/view?10880
that is moronic. it is yet another point of failure on the tire!
a rfid label on the inside of the tire would work exactly the same and not compromise the tire structure.
Re: U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are wrong. As citizens we can grant and revoke government powers at will. Cutting off or significantly curtailing their revenue would have a similar effect. EDIT: There would need to be a concomitant cultural change as well. As it stands folks are not aware of or engaged with what their government is doing. Even if we replaced every government official today, it could quickly devolve back to its current state.
>You are wrong. As citizens we can grant and revoke government powers at will. Theoretically. First you would need someone with these beliefs to run for office. You would need them to win office, in a position where they have the power to change the laws. Then you would need them to resist the temptation to listen to lobbyists trying to change their mind. Then you would need a vote to pass. Then you would need the go…
What's needed is a team of 51 people winning Senate seats and a team of 218 people winning House seats. Getting that team in place will require a sustained, 4-6 year effort since a 3rd of representatives are elected each year.
Pulling off such a takeover is possible, though it would be a lot of work. Voter turnout for Senate and House has been between 36% and 53%.[0],[1] Traditionally campaign finance has been considered a barrier to electing good representatives; however, the hold campaign advertising has over our election process may be weakening. People under 35 spend less time consuming traditional media where campaign ads run and more time on YouTube and social media. A campaign focused on voters under 35 might be enough to create significant change. In California, for example, there are almost enough people between the ages of 18-35 to make a win possible if those people voted as a team.[2]
[0]: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0397.p...
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_Sta...
[2]: http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/california/demograp...
Re: U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
"it's used primarily to keep law and order." Except when it's not. No one disagrees the advantages afforded to us with access to data. However with great power comes great responsibility and our leaders, including the institutional powers behind them, invariably show a lack of the latter. "Honestly, no-one cares." That is patently untrue. People who understand the disadvantages and pitfalls of unfettered access to da…
> "Except when it's not. No one disagrees the advantages afforded to us with access to data. However with great power comes great responsibility and our leaders, including the institutional powers behind them, invariably show a lack of the latter." It would be political suicide for a UK politician to use the data the police and security forces have for political gain (assuming they got caught of course). It just does…
It didn't stop the Murdoch press from bribing cops for data from their information systems. If police have it without intense scrutiny then anyone can get it, the press, corporations who you disagree with, your violent ex-husband. not to mention some yob at the council or any government agency with enforcement powers.