San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance
massprivatei.blogspot.com
massprivatei.blogspot.com
I don't know what I would do and neither do most of us without being in that situation.
"Tyle wiemy o sobie, ile nas sprawdzono"
Which translates roughly to:
"We only know as much about ourselves, as we've been tried"
During WW2 there was a lot of atrocities committed by people against their own. Not just Nazis against Poles or Jews, but Poles against Poles, Jews against Jews, Ukrainians against Ukrainians....etc etc. People who were given a choice to either hunt and kill their own, or have their families killed. Nazis frequently got the native population to do the most evil stuff(for the promise of being left alone in exchange), even documenting it on film and photos to show it back in Germany as "look at those barbarians killing each other".
Basically we don't know what we would do in case of extreme adversity until we actually face it. I personally wish with all my being that my test will never come.
We need government regulation.
I also dislike the "someone else will take their place" logic. While a large number of jobs are, indeed, trivially replaceable, many are not, and many developers have significantly above average skill. Some believe they act ethically, and some do not care. If we can remove those who wish to act ethically from working at unethical companies, we significantly shrink the job pool for them. They'll have less options, and likely have to fight harder and pay more to get them. This means that unethical companies may be paying more (i.e. lower profit margins) and be getting worse talent.
If we can get more of the most talented developers working at more ethical companies, the more ethical solutions will be better, and they will win in the market.
[1] I am a big proponent of GDPR and a desire for a US version of it. Though ultimately, particularly in terms of government surveillance, I feel we need a Constitutional Amendment defining a right to privacy. Something far more lasting and enshrined into our future legal framework that recognizes that privacy is a fundamental human right.
Romania is not and never was part of the EEU aka Eurasian Economic Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Economic_Union
If so then you made another mistake :-) as Ukraine is not a member state of the European Union.
[EEU vs WEU] You could see it sometimes abbreviated that way."
Please don't read my comment as aggressive but I have NEVER seen such abbreviated form.
"Eurasian union (I thought that one was largely defunct anyway?)"
This entity is very much alive and kicking (usually as much as Vladimir Putin wants it to be). The EEU presidency is held throughout 2019 by Armenia.
With Eurasian union I thought that Ukraine basically killed it and since then Kazakhstan is trying to get rid of cyrilic and Lukashenko is all in to be either the Russian boss and Putin successor or moving Belarus towards EU, so the original Eurasian union idea is toast. At least from my outsider perspective (never visited any ex-Soviet Union countries, just knew some people from there, both pro and anti-western ones).
Then denied it ... and then more details kept coming out showing Google continued working on it, just more quietly.
https://theintercept.com/2018/09/14/google-china-prototype-l...
Google is already an extremely large company, and I think that many are only just now realizing the problems that they were contributing to. It may take a while for employee actions (both protests and resignations) to have a visible impact due to it's size, but I think they're making progress.
As per my thoughts I expounded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19548485 I think that Google's available talent pool is shrinking. Many very talented engineers have left, and many new potential engineers would not want to work there. Sure, there are still plenty who do, but I would say their options are narrowing over time.
I think you overestimate how skilled you need to be to work at Google. Google has famously put people through enormous hoops to work there, regardless of the complexity the engineering the new hire will work on.
Organizations like NSA also have a negative reputation, but find plenty of people to hire. They just look outside Stanford,CMU, etc.
I suspect that as the people who don't have to work there stop applying, Google will widen it's parameters to snare in the people who have to work there.
(I've met many a person at Defcon who did a stint in the intel community because they saw it as the only path to a high paying job if you don't have an elite upbringing and don't want to directly kill people.)
The goal here is to ensure their ethical competitors have access to resources they don't.
Sure, but I also think if you have enough money to retire early, you're less likely to do something you don't agree with. Many people don't have that luxury.
No. As I previously stated Google puts people through enormous hoops to work there. That has no bearing on the quality of the worker.
For example, it's been noted that past a certain IQ, there is diminishing returns - eg, past ~130 IQ you're no more likely to win a Nobel Prize.
I think the real threat is that Google "lowers" it's standards and output remains the same. This would threaten the business models of "elite" schools who pretend to have a monopoly on talent.
Leaving Google is not enough already, it will manage on its own (because it already has the power and because because so many gifted people still just dream to work at Google). But creating and promoting numerous better alternatives to Google may help.
So far that dissatisfaction has been mostly inert, unfortunately. But I like to think that the typical engineer's morals haven't been as corroded by money as the typical CEO, and that we'll eventually reach a breaking point where things will get so bad that the engineers will finally take a stand. Tech puts power in the hands of the few, but that tech can't be built without lots of engineers. The sooner they see past the utopian narratives peddled by their bosses and set aside their comfy lives, the better.
Right now software engineering is one of the most fertile job markets out there. In the right city you can walk out on the street and stub your toe on a new job, offering good pay and office perks. Maybe it won't always be that way, but being a programmer right now feels like being the prettiest girl at the ball. That's a good climate in which to quit your job out of principle.
> Organized efforts won't stop any of it either, even if it succeed in one country, there are too many countries, some much more oppressive and brain washy than the others and make it practically impossible to have an influence.
It sounds like you've just succumbed to general defeatism, which to me seems like a waste of time and energy.
It's not like that for almost anyone in the world.
No, not all of us do this.
I’ve quite jobs over questionable morals/ethics a couple of times. It wasn’t a hard choice - I applied for a new job and was gone in two weeks.
I don't think this is true. Jobs are plentiful and easy to get in most of the nation for skilled software engineers.
Very few CEOs can do the coding of a secret project.
I’ve quit jobs in the past over ethical concerns with the project. It is a valid reason, and it just takes courage.
They won't. 99% of people hate to take responsibilities and will never take any voluntarily without being well-paid for this or believing success is guaranteed. Expecting them to is ignoring a fact, may we like it or not. And they are not broken, it's not their job. Taking responsibilities is a job of politicians we elect yet they want power over everything.
In the EU, however, a reasonable part of politicians seems doing the job so we have GDPR and Google/Facebook/etc fined billions every now and then. But they could certainly do better so we wouldn't have the fascist copyright reform.
2. I walk everyday by a large Bayer building, a company that sells chemicals that create cancer and sells chemicals that heal cancer. Hundreds of people enter the building every day and I think you just need to pay enough money, and you will always find people doing your work.
His sacrifice was not in vain. Today, you can print an assault rifle receiver or 9mm receiver. Everyone should learn how to assemble a weapon. Everyone should also learn how to break into a server, using Kali Linux. Government and corporate IT types are stooges. It is a Constitutional duty that we all share in, as a check against government and corporate Tyranny.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Not with the many weapons circulating in the US.
Just look at what the French can do with basically stones and molotovs as weapons. No matter how brutal the French police act, the population is not afraid of telling their leadership how much they suck in terms that they can understand.
Now imagine a France Gilets Jaunes-level protest wave in the US, just with the demonstrators armed with AR15, proper bombs and a boatload of protective armor. That would be a bloodshed. Aside from "mowing down protesters" being very bad PR even for the most conservative media outlets, I doubt that the US government would risk something like that to happen.
Other countries with an unarmed population not used to protests that go beyond holding up signs like Germany, however, they're a different game. And it shows. Our politicians implement one authoritarian measure after another and the only thing people went on to the streets to protest is Article 13.
Vietnam and Iraq are two standout examples of weapons being useful to resist a powerful occupier. They never actually defeated the US, they were just a huge pain in the ass until the US finally gave up and left.
The SD Reader isn’t a very trustworthy source. Here’s the U-T’s extensive piece on the topic:
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversatio...
Wrong. I've seen these from Pacific Beach to Imperial Beach. That is around 40 miles from North to South. They are _everywhere_. You can spot them by the black antennas sticking out the bottom of the light fixture.
Source: I've lived in San Diego for 50 years.
You can see them all here: https://cityiqmapsd.herokuapp.com/
What's your source?
That's what they all say. It's an empty platitude at best.
"the audio recording capability isn't live"
Yet. It is still present, though, and could become live should San Diego decide it to be useful.
America, land of the free and home of the obedient and fearful. Seeing this, I can't help but feel like we have gone too far to have any return to what privacy we did have.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xh....
> Therefore, it is not the intent of the Legislature to place greater restraints on the use of listening devices and techniques by law enforcement agencies than existed prior to the effective date of this chapter.
I'm not sure how large or small that loophole is according to the courts.
-----
Then as I was glancing through it, I noticed that this is the law that makes CA a two party consent state:
§632(a)
> without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication
§632(d)
> evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section is not admissible
So that sucks.
§633.5
> do not prohibit one party to a confidential communication from recording the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably believed to relate to the commission by another party to the communication of the crime of
But at least it's slightly better as of... 2018. It only took them until 2018 to add that. FFS.
-----
This one was a pleasant surprise though:
§637.7
> No person or entity in this state shall use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person.
So is it a misdemeanor to track your child via their cellphone in CA? I'm also wondering about all that cell phone location data that was sold (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3b3dg/big-teleco...). Have I misunderstood something?
It's worth looking at the whole section:
CA Penal Code § 637.7 (2017)
(a) No person or entity in this state shall use an
electronic tracking device to determine the location or
movement of a person.
(b) This section shall not apply when the registered
owner, lessor, or lessee of a vehicle has consented to
the use of the electronic tracking device with respect
to that vehicle.
(c) This section shall not apply to the lawful use of an
electronic tracking device by a law enforcement agency.
(d) As used in this section, “electronic tracking
device” means any device attached to a vehicle or other
movable thing that reveals its location or movement by
the transmission of electronic signals.
(e) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
(f) A violation of this section by a person, business,
firm, company, association, partnership, or corporation
licensed under Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000)
of the Business and Professions Code shall constitute
grounds for revocation of the license issued to that
person, business, firm, company, association,
partnership, or corporation, pursuant to the provisions
that provide for the revocation of the license as set
forth in Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of
the Business and Professions Code.
However, IIRC there are a lot of cases where a parent's consent is considered to be equivalent to the child consenting, and this might be one of them; as long as the parent consents to the child being tracked, it'd be legal in such a case.
Obligatory "I ain't a lawyer".
I too was initially confused by the "or other movable thing" part, but I'm pretty sure the the cell phone itself qualifies as a movable thing in this context.
How did placing this kind of trust in our government work when we last tried it (patriot act & fisa)?
Much like discussions about corporate policies, I find it helps to ask what happens when the handbook isn't followed...
How many years in prison does someone get for unauthorized access or (if an authorized user) abusing their access for improper use?
The subtext of my post was that virtuously rigorous guidelines with no enforcement mechanism are a paper tiger.
It's quite a harsh punishment for accessing records inappropriately.
There are a few telling things in the article you link to that make it clear that the government values expediency over protecting citizens' rights.
The first notable one is the process: a police officer has to submit a request to view video records... but to whom? It looks like just to their superiors? If they actually cared about protecting people's rights, the request should have to be made to a court, in the same way a warrant needs to be requested.
The city points out that the audio recorders aren't active because they don't have a use case for the audio. They claim that they would engage the public before activating them, but... is that really true? And regardless, I would not want that activated, ever. Any use case audio recordings of public spaces could possibly have... I do not want that. Having the hardware there and ready is just too tantalizing to public officials.
I've been thinking about moving to SD at some point, but this kind of thing really gives me pause.
This is clearly not about recording audio of vehicle traffic, but about recording conversations between the same citizens they're visually monitoring.
Plus, they were very quick to pull the trigger and install these without asking. Clearly asking people who would do such a thing to "exercise self control" in regard to enabling yet another degree of surveillance seems like an exercise in futility.
That means they are planning to use audio recordings.
Source: I've lived in San Diego for the last 50 years.
https://www.sandiegoreader.com/staff/matthew-lickona/ https://www.sandiegoreader.com/staff/don-bauder/
This is a good and instructive example of statements that contain no information.
If access to the video were liberal and careless, it would be described as "very limited and subject to strict protocols". If, on the contrary, access to the video was very limited and subject to strict protocols ...
You get the idea. Zero weight should be given to assurances that would be given out regardless of the actual state of affairs.
A good heuristic is to ignore these communications and concentrate only on actions, but in this case where there may not be concrete evidence of misbehavior, we need to rely on a different heuristic: potential risks and worst case outcomes.
> In short, CityIQ transforms a city's lighting infrastructure into an all-knowing, data intelligence network. -- https://www.currentbyge.com/cities
"Hey, cities, want to install our Panopticon?"
At least BriefCam took the time to encode their site in PR-speak:
> BriefCam is the industry’s leading provider of Video Synopsis® solutions for rapid video review and search, real-time alerting and quantitative video insights. -- https://www.briefcam.com/company/about/
Being a border city and a major military hub for the Navy and Marines, surveillance technology being developed by businesses here have been a response to these types of organizations' needs and challenges.
I could see backlash as this surveillance tech permeates the county and extreme edge cases are brought to the surface to be used as weapons for curbing implementation.
The border already has border security and military bases already have existing security. What specific "needs" and "challenges" does San Diego currently have that are not fulfilled by those existing systems and requires the deployment of all pervasive surveillance throughout the entire city?
Fun fact: Intersection cameras have been proven to cause more accidents, as more people slam on their brakes to avoid a ticket then coast through the light.
Worth also noting that rear-end crashes are generally less dangerous than t-bones. For similar reasons, roundabouts can be preferable to standard crossroads even if they result in a higher number of collisions.
I hope you will look further into this - you may be interested to learn (I was) that a nearly perfect intervention for red lights being "run" is to lengthen the yellow signal.
It costs nothing and works as well, or better, than red light cameras - and with none of the artificial, unexpected driving behaviors that can cause rear-end accidents.
http://saferstreetsla.org/679/case-studies-longer-yellow-lig...
https://www.motorists.org/issues/red-light-cameras/yellow-li...
[0] https://www.toledoblade.com/image/2014/06/06/1140x_a10-7_cTC...
Microphones are used in a lot of places to figure out and triangulate the location of a gunshot. Cameras can track cars and people automatically.
Not sure what to do about it though. Maybe multisig with community leaders and police with a court available as an override? Just spitballing. Everything has a negative unintended consequence.
Apparently, those don't work too well.
Spotshotter works in principle, but police departments are getting as low as 50% false positive rates, and can't really do anything if they do get reports of gunshots anyway - they turn up and the shooter is gone.
https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/After-Too-Many-Shots-M...
If your question is "When do you decide to stop spending and give up on people?", then I think the only civilised answer is "Never".
If my city ever decided to implement surveillance on that scale, vandalism is clearly on the table. Just try to sabotage the network first. Would help you not get caught, at least for a while.
In essence: Increase the rate of criminality. They were asking for it.
In seriousness: please don't do that (yet). If you care deep enough to do all that, why don't you join the local government, the local media, start your own local media, become a counter-movement that doesn't go against the law?
Yes, destruction of government property is a crime, but widespread deployment of surveillance dragnet is a far more clear and present danger to everyone.
It's one of those rare cases through which the government, by doing something, has made the place less "safe" for what? A bit of security? Boulderdash! If anything it's yet another test case on how far total public space information dominance can be pushed. It's a social engineering ploy that needed to stay in the pages of a book of speculative fiction.
He describes an extrapolation of our world's recent history, one in which "reality" is captured for posterity by omnipresent cameras. Citizens record the details of each day by taking written notes of encounters, in addition to stamping pages of their day book with "conversation stamps". These stamps establish the presence of a person in the company of another, thus allowing "reality" to be pieced together later on. In short, citizens of the Golden State consider reality precious, and go to great lengths in order to record & preserve the events of each day, however minute they may seem.
Ben Winters is a great author, one of my favorite sci-fi craftsmen. He had me hooked throughout the novel, in no small part because I kept alternating between two emotional extremes. On one hand, I was abhorred by such systemic invasion of privacy. At the same time I saw obvious benefits that stemmed from systemic, society-fracturing lies having been banished from the Golden State universe.
There is simply not enough crime in most US areas to justify this.
This should only be allowed in hyper-specific scenarios wherein there is an evident need: airports, borders, very high crime areas, international conferences, maybe around Capitol Hill and White House etc..
And it should be marked / publicized.
Add to that drones to keep the population under control and there is huge danger we'll have a pretty bleak future.
City and state level political change is very malleable.
Corporations have already figured this out, e.g. ALEC [1] writes laws, then gets sympathetic minions to enact them, but city politics still operate on a human scale in many places. I'd bet that a motivated campaign could reverse this move in San Diego, or at least figure out who pushed for it. I don't think there was massive popular support for cameras in streetlights.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_...
Getting younger people who give a shit to vote, and to become immune to the bogus fear mongering.
Hope the baby boomers die off of old age before the panopticon is built.
The current builders of the panopticon are very young and work for Google, Facebook and others. This has nothing to do with age.
The panopticon is being requested and purchased by municipalities, which are predominantly governed by those from the baby boomer generation. Start-up 101. Build what the Users want.
Everything feels scary, try walking around at 2 a.m. and not feeling it. People are tired of it.
I don't think that all the surveillance will work. You always find the most amount of sketchy people around police stations. The cameras will make things worse. Good people will flee to other neighborhoods, were they are not being watched.
Fundamentally, why arn't things safe?
Also though the kids at the moment seem to understand better the risk/reward benefits of some technologies and have a better idea what actual risks they take. You see this in voting patterns.
But won't be. GWB expanded the state's powers with the Patriot Act, Obama signed an extension and then a new version of the act when parts expired. When both sides are pro-surveillance and Americans refuse to change the system or support 3rd parties, what change can there be?
First past the post receives a lot of criticism for
restricting options to vote for due to the idea of vote
splitting and strategic voting. This leads elections to
run into the commonly referred to "Lesser of two evils"
dilemma and ends with a 2-party system in place. With 42%
of Americans saying they identify as independent and 60%
of Americans saying the need for a new party is apparent,
it would suggest that the FPTP voting system is failing
democracy, failing Americans, and failing America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#Comparison_tabl...
US Congress doesn't represent US citizens. So nothing changes if moneyed interests want US citizens to live under surveillance.
That's circular logic. "They must be the most qualified, because they raised the most money and the person who gets elected is the one who raised the most money".
In a functioning democracy there should be a cliff where, no matter how much you spent, you cannot simply buy the election.
https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-67-the-gate-keepi...
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...
But Trump's team did a good job at getting in the media. Any news station you turned on there was more talk about Trump than Hillary.
The house of representatives should serve as a bulwark against "moneyed interests", but even they are being targeted and bought by money. What good is democracy if a small group of people buy all the politicians?
https://www.cu-citizenaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/...
It'll probably end in a war of some sort, as power struggles usually do, but a chaotic don't-know-who-your-enemies-are war like Syria rather than the Great Power contests of WW2. Then after the war we'll likely see the survival of technologies that don't require large-scale maintenance (like solar, batteries or mechanical/thermal storage, electric motors, market economies, flexible micro-manufacturing, computers, and drones) over those that do (like the electric grid, large corporations, state-wide surveillance, broadcast networks, large standing armies, etc.).
It's featured in a new book called "Eyes in the Sky", and is said to have been used secretly over several cities in the US.
Skip to 30m mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP_T45UG1-o?t=30m29s
But if you want to see 1984 play out - look at parenting and children today compared to children growing up in 1984. Many freedoms removed directly and indirectly by laws on the back of child safety.
Maybe instead of fighting with technology we should find ways preventing it's misuse: more open governments, electronic voting for individual laws, more surveillance over finances of elected officials.
Dictatorship forms okay without it.
More overt surveillance is a civil maintainer. Taiwan has camera surveillance everywhere and solves above 90% crime.
It used to surprise me how in denial people can be about their own localities' surveillance. Now I think that makes sense as a consequence of the surveillance mostly being covert.
Could a startup make a dent?
This info may be owned by Google or Apple, but fascism is about control, not ownership. No warrant required for LEO to see that data.
The government putting devices on lights that are owned by the government, in public places - that's small potatoes in comparison.
Work still remains though, one BART employee told the press they were considering fake gun turrets that would drop down from the ceiling on suspected criminals. Work still remains to make American culture see the dangers of a police state as more than a punch line [1]
0: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/09/bart-delays-action-on...
1: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/amp...
I tried to search for some actual national statistics it couldn’t readily find anything. My suspicion is that some of those BART stations are extremely dangerous environments that put police in very tricky situations.
There have also admittedly been a few very high profile accidental shootings.
A telescreen by any other name...
The way to fight this is with votes or in courts, which may not be effective in short term but doesn’t land you in jail.
The challenge in a way is how can we ever vote for or fight against (in court) things we don't even know exist sometimes?
I'm not sitting on a high horse or anything. I mean hey, I'm from Wisconsin. We're literally the nation's corruption measuring stick. But we voted our politicians in, so we deserve what's happening to us.
I'm just holding San Diego to the same standard. If you hadn't voted them in, this wouldn't be happening to you. Best advice I can give you? Vote in some new guys who will pass new measures to get rid of the cameras.
Pretty much describes every party though, that's the issue. Wisconsin got screwed over by conservatives, SD got screwed over by liberals. Just have to try to find an honest politician. (Of course, that in and of itself is at once a quixotic and sisyphean task.)
2. the folks who did this did it secretly, without consent
deserves? i’d rather push for what ought to be than justify the current mess.
This. I've lived in San Diego for 50 years and this was done in secret.
I'm contacting the ACLU to try and get a lawsuit going. This is appalling.
Imagine giving inmates the 'freedom' to vote for their warden. The outcome of such an election would have no bearing on the morality of their imprisonment.
The problem is that the stakes are quite high, and a gradually creeping occupation doesn't lend itself to a flashpoint of popular opinion saying enough is enough.
This might be a great nonmurder application for an assassination-market style thing though.
What’s so bad about cameras in public spaces anyway?
Speaking as someone who had his phone stolen in a public space, I regret that there weren’t cameras around so they could’ve caught the guy.
Permanently damaging the camera sensor isn't so cheap or easy to replace. And as many lasers operate in the visible light spectrum you can't block it without worsening the image quality substantially.
But you lose head aiming into curves, so maybe somewhere in the jaw region might be interesting. You'd need an entirely new approach to fixing for sports that don't already have full face headgear, but the usual forehead position isn't exactly fashionable either (historically this position comes from mining I think, where the shadow/structure effect isn't wasted when it works on the ceiling instead of on the floor).
...assuming no ski mask.
/s
Just want to note, to be fair here, the "communities of color" have next to or no active cameras installed (according to the map in the article).
That said, this is sad but not surprising.
https://arrayofthings.github.io/
It was specifically designed to not have cameras however, to assuage privacy advocates.
It claims the data is local to each node, but you've only got their word about what firmware is running on each node.
They already (incompetently) shared access to real time licence plate scanning with federal agencies.
So, everyone that isn't the City of San Diego, which is pretty problematic, when you think about it.
In Houston, when Transtar (the local transportation management agency) first put up its network of traffic cameras it worked out a deal with one of the local TV stations (KPRC, I think) to provide it with exclusive access to the video.
The other stations pointed out that in Texas, Transtar video was considered public records, and so Transtar had to allow every TV station use them, as long as they ran fiber to the agency's headquarters to pick up the feeds. So KPRC's "exclusive" advantage evaporated within a month or two.
https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2019/feb/20/san-diegos-s...
"...when a request under provisions of state public records law was sent to the city on January 3 to obtain data generated by a single so-called smart streetlight installed on a Market Street light pole, the response was repeatedly delayed.
“The City has to conduct a search for records, examine records, consult with another agency, or compile data in order to determine whether it has disclosable records,” said a January 11 message.
“Pursuant to Cal. Government Code section 6253(c), the City needs to consult with multiple departments having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the department having substantial subject matter interest; such consultation shall be conducted with all practical speed. Therefore, the City is taking a 14-day extension in which to conduct this consultation. We will notify you on or before January 25 whether the City has disclosable records."
Come January 25, the city said it still wasn’t prepared to turn over the records.”
Not the videos though.
politicians in the West excel at exploiting fear and jealously to obtain more authority, divide and conquer.
The US would only end up in dictatorship through court packing or a moral authority faction taking over; by moral I do not mean religious. pretty much look at countries where politicians declare a group of haves to be illegal or unjust and you get the idea.
I don't think that's a trait unique to politicians in the West, and in fact I'd say that Western politicians tend to exploit fear and jealousy less than those in the developing world. You've got ethnic cleansing going on in Myanmar, ethnic and religious conflict in Kashmir, and the extrajudicial killings of drug dealers and users in the Phillipines, to name a few instances.
Serious question.
If you're going to correlate datasets, you could just as easily do it with your sports/weather data and pneumatic tube data.
That would be like McDonalds digging through the trash to account for the uneaten food.
I wonder where this kind of accounting goes on the balance sheet? Maybe part of the Richard Pryor fund?
I liked one scenario they had for self-driving car crashes and the dilemma who should be killed in the event of an unavoidable accident. Car quickly retrieved the social score of each probable victim from a ctOS database and optimized crash setup to do the lowest harm to subjects with highest social score. No more car occupant vs external person nor owner vs manufacturer legal responsibility dilemma. Sounds really prophetic. Can't wait to see it in action! /s
Repeat after me: Ever single hierarchy has abuses.
Build a society that has more than one person, and I'll show you a society where someone takes advantage of something more than they probably should, either legally or ethically.