Hacker News Reader

Comment by firtoz | Hacker News Reader

My point is that if they would want to attack me or my community or things like that, especially illegally, or, in ways that would not really be approved by the public, then it would be easier to build up arguments or defences against those than to prevent cameras etc.

View on HN

To make a comparison: it is also 'theoretically' easier to teach people not to shoot eachother, rather than to restrict their access to a technology which makes killing very simple. I think keeping the 'activation barrier' to bad actor induced, AI-aided stalking high is a good thing, even if it is only a temporary solution.

I think it could easily be harder to defend against an attacker who has the complete ability to surveil and track you at all times.

What about when they want to attack you for things that would be approved by the public? Imagine a black person in the Jim Crow south doing civil rights organizing having to live in a society with these cameras.

Let's say the public is against you (both in opinion and legally) and you need to organise your people to try to change their mind.

What I'm saying is that it's wise to assume that if you have enemies, they will know a lot about what you are doing and that if you do something in public or maybe even private, they may know what you are doing much more than they could in the past.

Is it right, should they do it? Of course not. But are they doing it? It's safer to assume, yes, they are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com