Hacker News Reader

Comment by pugworthy | Hacker News Reader

Neither votes nor courts enabled this - governments just did it, and will just do things like this without asking (nor sometimes checking).

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?

View on HN

To be fair, the people of San Diego voted their government in. So in my view, they got what they deserved.

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.

1. the folks who did this weren’t unanimously voted in by san diego residents

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.

>> the folks who did this did it secretly, without consent

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.

The idea that people deserve what politicians do to them because voting has occurred is a smug easy answer, but it's ultimately just baseless victim blaming.

Exactly right. Keep electing the same people, same party, who always campaign on issues that they never actually solve, while they solidify and expand their power.

>who always campaign on issues that they never actually solve, while they solidify and expand their power...

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.)

What about those who abstained from voting? The hole in the 'consent of the governed', 'you got what you asked for' mythology is that there is no way to withdraw your consent.

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.

Courts and legislatures could stop it or regulate its use. The heart of the legal question is what aspects of domestic surveillance might be seen to violate 4th amendment protections. Thus far, "the right of people to be secure in their persons" has not been interpreted by courts in a manner that would constrain or limit surveillance in public places or the use of catch-all checkpoints. That could change with the right test cases, particularly if harms can be established.

I think the test cases would hinge upon the difference between a specific individual not having an expectation of privacy in public, versus the public in general. It's always been possible to follow an individual around and keep him under surveillance. It's never been possible to keep everybody under surveillance all at the same time.

Present legislation for public surveillance accountability (or vote for people who will) like Seattle did https://www.seattle.gov/tech/initiatives/privacy/surveillanc...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com