25 cameras destroyed over the course of a year, and more than half were destroyed by a single person. This doesn't appear to be a widespread concern the headline makes it out to be.
The beauty of surveillance is that it mutes the ability to cover the distance between desire and action. Which is another way to state "it has a chilling effect"
As I understand, part of any story being shared is that its propagation is part of the story, in a McLuhan medium-is-the-message sense.
People that are writing this story surely would. They, of course, wouldn't do it themselves - I mean, you could be arrested and lose your job and go to jail... but if somebody else would bear those consequences, then of course it's fine!
> Which is another way to state "it has a chilling effect"
Yes, that's kind of the point. The question is what does it chill. If it is chilling criminal activities, it's good, if it's chilling legal activities, it's bad.
The surveillance affects those in the march. Those who might lose their jobs or get arrested. Which did happen at that time. Surveillance increases that scale.
A weird thing is that as groups scale they become anonymous. Small groups have no anonymity, but big groups do. There's safety in numbers. This is why people protest differently now. Why they wear masks. Why people leave their phones at home. The way you protest evolves, but we should ensure that protesting is easy and safe
No, they wear masks to commit criminal acts, which we witness a lot and for which they definitely should be prosecuted. I am wholeheartedly for peaceful protests, but sorry, black block masked crowds torching businesses and beating up people is not peaceful protests. That's where our ways part. Anarchy and democracy are very different things, and I do not want the former, and I do not want the latter to be confused with the former. And no, it should not be easy and safe to wear a mask and riot - not individually and not with a mob. It should be very dangerous and land one in jail, preferable for a good long time. The fact that it is not happening today is one of the very profound problem that we have in our society - that breaking the laws is tolerated under the thin guise of "protest". And I am not talking about Jim Crow laws, I am talking about common sense laws like "don't torch your neighbor's business" and "don't loot your local Target" and "don't beat up random people walking on the street because you felt like they think wrong thoughts". This has to stop.
> No, they wear masks to commit criminal acts,
I've worn a mask at a protest and committed no crime while protesting. I, and many others, do it for exactly the reasons I have said above.
I won't defend looters nor deny their existence. But I'll also tell you I've been to protests where I get home and turn on the TV and see it painted as something very different from the thing I experienced. I've gone to parks where people spoke, where a bunch of hippies played drums, where people marched down the street, but then on the news saw only scenes of trash cans burning on the other side of town. I've seen people get gassed and arrested while holding up signs and shouting, then get home, turn on the TV and only see images of some brawl that I never saw. I would have never known had I turned on news. But the news also never showed the things I saw and experienced. I don't think these are fake, I'm sure they're things that happened, but it certainly feels misleading as it's certainly misrepresenting reality.
It doesn't matter if it's Fox or CNN, they show what gets them views. They show what makes you scared. They show what makes you angry. But what they don't show is people. In any big group you can find at least someone doing anything. But one person isn't the group just like one action doesn't define your whole life.
So I welcome you to go to protests. To counter protest if you want. That is your right and I'll defend that right too. It's your God given right and I'll defend it even if I hate you for it. You have the right to be a saint. You have the right to be an asshole. You can't have the right to but one without the right to be the other. I've done it in the past and I'll do it again. Because, first they come for the people who are easy to hate...
> And no, it should not be easy and safe to wear a mask and riot
First, I agree, it should not be easy to riot. I don't want to condone rioting. Let's get that straight.
Second, I want to live in a world where wearing masks isn't seen as self defense for people exercising their rights. I want a system where people feel safe protesting and showing their faces. But it's not uncommon to go to protests and find a Cessna circling above it for hours. It's not uncommon to go to a protest with a rayhunter and see a lot of imsi catchers. It's not uncommon to go to protests and see police set up cameras and license plate detectors all throughout the neighborhoods. So help take down the surveillance state and I'll take off my mask. Deal? Because no matter which side of the isle you're on I'm sure we can agree there. I don't want to be ruled by communists, fascist, dictators, monarchs, plutocrats, nor any of the like. I'm not an anarchistic, I'm even more accepting of authority than our founding fathers. But authority needs to be kept in check, because power creeps
Of course, and I agree. But wearing masks to protest is strongly correlated with "protests" that aren't protests but riots - not in theory, but in practice. That's like if you see someone marching with clean-shaved head and swastika on the sleeve - maybe it's a buddhist marching band, but in practice we know it's probably not.
> I've gone to parks where people spoke, where a bunch of hippies played drums,
And those hippies don't need to wear masks, and usually do not. I am all for hippies playing drums. It's the masked guys that hide behind them, waiting for the chance to set stuff on fire, that I am worrying about.
> So I welcome you to go to protests. To counter protest if you want.
No thank you. I have no particular desire to be beaten within an inch of my life, as it happened to many people already. Yes, I know not everybody would attack me, just a tiny minority, while the hippies will keep playing drums. Somehow it doesn't make me feel better about staying the next couple of months in the hospital. If I am lucky.
> In any big group you can find at least someone doing anything. But one person isn't the group
Unfortunately, it's not one person. It's a lot of persons. It's not all the persons, true, but that's not helping - it's like saying we shouldn't investigate murders because most people aren't murderers. True, they aren't - that's the minority that are that we worry about. And again, practice shows those are exactly the one that wear masks and other gear specially designed to make them hard to identify and prosecute. They are not stupid, they know that blending in the crowd of innocent people makes them harder to find and catch.
> But authority needs to be kept in check, because power creeps
Again, I agree, it needs to be. But not by means of mayhem, which is right now seems to be a very popular mode of doing it, for some reason. Yes, not everybody. Enough to be a huge problem.
> And those hippies don't need to wear masks
> No thank you. I have no particular desire to be beaten within an inch of my life,
So supposing you're right, that it is that dangerous: something doesn't add up. It's pretty trivial to act "undercover", if you will.
Some of them do not need to wear costumes, they do it because they want to. Others are criminals that intend to attack the police and interfere with lawful law enforcement activities. That's why they need masking - to avoid being prosecuted for their criminal activities. I agree that criminals indeed derive many benefits from not being prosecuted - but I don't see how it should make me sympathize, when I am not a criminal.
> Suppose this is true, why would someone beat you up?
Because in some parts of our political culture, wrong views are violence, and must be met with violence. Protesting (or counter-protesting) only makes sense if I disagree with something important, which automatically makes my views "wrong" to a sizable number of people, many of whom are members of that culture, and are proudly announcing it in public.
> They aren't beating up each other, right?
Sometimes they do. Sometimes they are also raping each other. Sometimes they even are killing each other. Look up Horace Lorenzo Anderson Jr.
> The only way they would know you're on the opposite side is if you tell them.
Or if they think I am looking suspicious or wearing wrong clothes or not chant enthusiastically enough or look like somebody they hate. Once violence is legitimized, there are thousands of reasons for violence. Why would I go to a place where there's a high chance this random violence would be turned against me? Why would I go there if the precondition is I can't even express my views - what's the point of going to a protest then? What would be the benefit of this action for me?
> It's pretty trivial to act "undercover", if you will.
Does the name Andy Ngo tell anything to you? How about Savanah Hernandez?
Those are ICE thugs.
This whole thread is pretty powerful evidence for that proposition: it's sprawling commentary on what pretty clearly seems to be LLM slop writing. You could build a novel operating system and get flagged off the front page for having a README with Claude tells in it, but that preference is obviously contingent.
But if you go ask people, in a non-duplicitous way, whether you want less of a police presence or curtail use technology to solve crimes, most people will not want less police. Here is an example
> When asked whether they want the police to spend more time, the same amount of time or less time than they currently do in their area, most Black Americans -- 61% -- want the police presence to remain the same. This is similar to the 67% of all U.S. adults preferring the status quo, including 71% of White Americans.
> Meanwhile, nearly equal proportions of Black Americans say they would like the police to spend more time in their area (20%) as say they'd like them to spend less time there (19%).
It's really a privileged out of touch luxury belief to believe that there is no need to deter or solve crime. People that are affected by crime and/or have common sense, understand that technology that helps solve or prevent criminal activities is actually a good thing.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-r...
Just because people want policing doesn't mean they want the kind of policing that we seem to be getting.
And that article you cite is a pretty good example of this.
The title is: Black Americans Want Police to Retain Local Presence
The bottom half is: Black Americans Lack Assurance Police Encounters Will Go Well
Police cameras are actually very popular, as is private security. I've even heard rich people voluntarily pay private security with guns (!) to protect them.
You're living in fantasy land my friend. No one outside of your bubble thinks about things this way. People are trying to live their lives and raise their kids. People don't like this chaos and have very little empathy for the few percent of people that terrorize their neighborhoods.
My "bubble" is that I read past the headline and got more than halfway through that article that you cited.
It's not a luxury belief to grapple with reality instead of subjecting yourself to a false dichotomy where you either have police prowling the streets or gangs doing the same. Don't give this "common sense" crap, you know very well that intuition fails all the time, especially when applied to incredibly complex topics like governance or social policy.
If direct experience and official stats conflict, it's usually the official stats that are wrong.
Yes, I agree things like murder has gone down (especially since it's recent peak in 2020/2021)
But in terms of lawlessness, there is a lot less law and order in most large cities. There were always homeless people in my lifetime, but the fentanyl zombies is relatively new. Or let me give you another example, consider Eric Garner who was killed on Staten Island in 2014 after a confrontation for selling loose untaxed cigarettes.
Today I walk by the same person parked out every single day, with a sign selling loose cigarettes along with weed. This is breaking a number of laws in a highly policed area in NYC. However there is no will to prevent do anything about it.
> It's not a luxury belief to grapple with reality instead of subjecting yourself to a false dichotomy where you either have police prowling the streets or gangs doing the same. Don't give this "common sense" crap, you know very well that intuition fails all the time, especially when applied to incredibly complex topics like governance or social policy.
No, this isn't a complicated issue. People get arrested regularly but they get let out to re-offend. here's a stat:
Among persons admitted to state prison in 2014 across 34 states, 77% had five or more prior arrests in their criminal history, including the arrest that resulted in their prison sentence... The number of prisoners that have had 15 or more prior arrests is over 26%
How about common sense policy, after your 15th arrest, you stay in prison until you're an old man and relatively harmless to society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Eric_Garner
https://mleverything.substack.com/p/acceptance-of-crime-is-a...
It is a complex issue. Even now we simultaneously let KnifecrimesMcGee out after 15 arrests while also locking up non-dangerous pot smokers for years. This isn't a "we're too lax" or "we're too strict" issue, it's both in different areas. Putting in an absolute 15 strikes program is going to hand more jaywalkers a life sentence than dangerous criminals for the simple fact that people get arrested over minor offenses more often than serious ones. Heavy-handed nonsense solves no problems. You need to acknowledge when an issue is beyond simple solutions if you're interested in solving it.
If Flock was simply a network of plate readers with some additional computer vision classification features (make, model, colour, vehicle type) which only saved data on vehicles matching an active BOLO, there would be far less concern.
But Flock is not that. It saves a timestamp and location of every single plate it sees. It is a mass surveillance machine, enabling gross privacy violations by collecting and making available to law enforcement movement data on anyone with a car.
Flock also shares data with the federal government, particularly ICE, even when the local PD has specifically signed contracts forbidding the practice. People who may otherwise be comfortable with Flock providing data to their local PD may not be comfortable when that data is handed to the Trump administration.
The CEO calling those who disagree with him "domestic terrorists" is also ample reason to be skeptical of Flock's mission.
In my non-tech circles, people don't think and don't care about this stuff.
I would love to use AI to re-write article headlines into non-ragebait slop.
But it’s not too late!