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

251–260 of 339 posts

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

#251

Post by awesome_dude »

nradov wrote: post #249
awesome_dude wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdata isn't going to get us any closer. Statistics gathered the way the are is all we have

Are the statistics accurate? Jeff Bezos said, "I have a saying, which is when the data and the anecdotes disagree, the anecdotes are usually right." https://lexfridman.com/jeff-bezos-transcript/#chapter6_amazo...

I have a saying - if you think the data is bad because it doesn't match your narrative, go out and prove you have better data collection methods.

Anecdata is well known to be problematic.

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

#252

Post by lovich »

slowhadoken wrote: post #246
lovich wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the state legalized it then it’s not a crime as far as the state is concerned. The feds still have it illegal but states are not required to enforce or even help federal law enforcement to enforce their own laws. They can choose to do so but it’s not an obligation. Your comment is coming from the perspective that they are criminals because you don’t like the activity, not because they broke the law. Lobby your sta…

Even if a state legalized marijuana it’s still illegal to possess a lot of it, to sell it without a license, and can violate tort, municipal, state and federal laws about drug smoke outdoors or indoors. It’s not my opinion, it’s regulation based on scientific evidence to protect public health. A lot of this is understood in California but cash poor states with huge budge problems look the other way. Potheads know thi…

Then have pushback, that’s how democracy is supposed to work. If your complaint is that enforcement isn’t 100% perfect then you’ll find most laws are lacking.

I say this as someone who also hates public pot smokers but I’m not talking about them like they are “dirty money”. People commonly want to do something with negative externalities. Enforcing regulation against that is a tradeoff between cost and benefit.

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

#253

Post by loeg »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #228
loeg wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hacker News, a forum run by an American tech incubator headquartered in SF...

(I don't even live in California.)

None of that really explains away your leap to incorrect conclusions and failure to apologize.

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

#254

Post by slowhadoken »

lovich wrote: post #252
slowhadoken wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if a state legalized marijuana it’s still illegal to possess a lot of it, to sell it without a license, and can violate tort, municipal, state and federal laws about drug smoke outdoors or indoors. It’s not my opinion, it’s regulation based on scientific evidence to protect public health. A lot of this is understood in California but cash poor states with huge budge problems look the other way. Potheads know thi…

Then have pushback, that’s how democracy is supposed to work. If your complaint is that enforcement isn’t 100% perfect then you’ll find most laws are lacking. I say this as someone who also hates public pot smokers but I’m not talking about them like they are “dirty money”. People commonly want to do something with negative externalities. Enforcing regulation against that is a tradeoff between cost and benefit.

Right, not enforcing laws is criminal. It’s like you’re agreeing with me but you’re depressed and apathetic about it. It’s not just me, you see it all over social media. People are grossed out by potheads. I grew up with hippies and didn’t have a problem with it until normies started abusing it. Legalizing drugs or gambling is a trade off, it’s dirty money. Politicians know this, they have meetings about how high crime will go up afterwards. Again It’s just a fact, it’s not my “feelings” or “opinions”. I’ve studied political science. My observations easily fit within an Isaiah Berlin‘s concept of liberty.

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

#255

Post by sonofhans »

hitekker wrote: post #231
sonofhans wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dee…

At the 0:10s mark of the video, the ex-stabber makes a move on the mayor and gets in the bodyguard's face, trading words. The SFChronicle reporter noted that critical detail you've overlooked. Seeing the threat depends on one's bias. The mob that hates police and/or the mayor (he's jewish, billionaire, etc) can't see it, because all violence is supposedly the system's fault. Verbal threats are only real if the system…

I’ll repeat my point that a good bodyguard stops shit rather than starting it. That idiot meatsack shouldn’t have been let anywhere near a bodyguard job. He failed at every aspect of the role, including getting his ass kicked.

Your continued reference to “ex-stabber” and the like make much of your dialog sound like a political dog whistle. E.g., repeated caricatures of opposition, like “all violence is supposedly the system’s fault.” It makes it rather exhausting to try to engage with good faith.

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

#256

Post by gottorf »

esikich wrote: post #229
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> conservatives eat up the dehumanization of it all

One could argue that's really dehumanizing is the callous disregard the system displays for the victims of such repeat violent offenders.

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

#257

Post by lovich »

slowhadoken wrote: post #254
lovich wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then have pushback, that’s how democracy is supposed to work. If your complaint is that enforcement isn’t 100% perfect then you’ll find most laws are lacking. I say this as someone who also hates public pot smokers but I’m not talking about them like they are “dirty money”. People commonly want to do something with negative externalities. Enforcing regulation against that is a tradeoff between cost and benefit.

Right, not enforcing laws is criminal. It’s like you’re agreeing with me but you’re depressed and apathetic about it. It’s not just me, you see it all over social media. People are grossed out by potheads. I grew up with hippies and didn’t have a problem with it until normies started abusing it. Legalizing drugs or gambling is a trade off, it’s dirty money. Politicians know this, they have meetings about how high cri…

Not enforcing the laws isn’t criminal in the United States, although I wish it was. The police in various jurisdictions have gone all the way to the Supreme Court to confirm that[1][2]

> It’s not just me, you see it all over social media. People are grossed out by potheads.

Cool, but you or anyone else being grossed out by someone’s activity doesn’t automatically rise to the level of criminality. I, and many others, am grossed out by devoutly religious people, do you think they are criminals based on that fact?

> Again It’s just a fact, it’s not my “feelings” or “opinions”.

Your comment included people being “grossed out” by others activity. That is literally your feelings and not objective fact.

> I’ve studied political science.

Oh hey, me too, even got a degree in it. Several of my classmates who studied it failed. Studying the topic doesn’t make you correct, only more likely to be well informed. Since I also have studied it we can remove that as a common denominator between us and stick to arguing our differences.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzale...

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

#258

Post by slowhadoken »

lovich wrote: post #257
slowhadoken wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, not enforcing laws is criminal. It’s like you’re agreeing with me but you’re depressed and apathetic about it. It’s not just me, you see it all over social media. People are grossed out by potheads. I grew up with hippies and didn’t have a problem with it until normies started abusing it. Legalizing drugs or gambling is a trade off, it’s dirty money. Politicians know this, they have meetings about how high cri…

Not enforcing the laws isn’t criminal in the United States, although I wish it was. The police in various jurisdictions have gone all the way to the Supreme Court to confirm that[1][2] > It’s not just me, you see it all over social media. People are grossed out by potheads. Cool, but you or anyone else being grossed out by someone’s activity doesn’t automatically rise to the level of criminality. I, and many others,…

Everything you’re saying I’ve heard a thousand times before. People tell me this kinda stuff all the time. I’m just good at predicting things. People talk in circles like you’re doing or laugh and then they see. Good luck.

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

#259

Post by philwelch »

VohuMana wrote: post #177
runjake wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hou…

It's intentional on the part of the prosecutors, and the billionaire who funds their campaigns. I don't know what their actual motivations are--probably some combination of ideological derangement and ulterior motive. They just don't believe in prosecuting most ordinary criminals.

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

#260

Post by philwelch »

awesome_dude wrote: post #251
nradov wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are the statistics accurate? Jeff Bezos said, "I have a saying, which is when the data and the anecdotes disagree, the anecdotes are usually right." https://lexfridman.com/jeff-bezos-transcript/#chapter6_amazo...

I have a saying - if you think the data is bad because it doesn't match your narrative, go out and prove you have better data collection methods. Anecdata is well known to be problematic.

> Anecdata is well known to be problematic.

Show me the data that backs that claim.

Post reply on HN