Hacker News Reader

Journalists have given up except for organizations like bellingcat, lighthouse reports, etc. that focus on data based reporting instead of narrative.

This is a broad, broad statement about journalism that's just... untrue. Local investigative journalism is wonderful and you should consider donating to a local newsroom to see more like it.

>> But every so often, a computer system hiccups, and an ordinary person ends up staring down the barrel of a gun for no reason at all.

> "Aww shucks, you know, bugs happen and sometimes guns get pointed at people because of them". Pardon my language but: What the actual fuck? How does a site write that with a straight face?

At the end of the day, the worst bug I could write might delete an object from a bucket. No bug I create will ever cause physical harm or death to the end user or anyone. No bug I create will ever cause a medical device to give erroneous results causing a patient to be misdiagnosed. This is by design. I don't want to ever be responsible for anything like that. Do people working on these kinds of products just dissociate their work from the potential negative effect their work could have?

Nope. Like people working in all sorts of safety-critical jobs around the world, we exercise care and (hopefully good) judgement.

I always find it interesting that everyone outside the industry focuses on the downside and completely ignores the positives like, you know, actually keeping people alive.

Regardless of the number of people kept alive, having one person not because of a bug I created would not sit well with me. Sure, you can hand wave it away by saying nobody down stream caught it either, but it wasn't their fingers that created the bug. Some people can dissociate that kind of thing. I don't want to find out if I can because I won't work in the fields that require me to need that ability. This isn't a military mindset where "if I don't get them they will get me". This is I fucked up regardless of intent or how complicated the process was. I'm happy you can and are okay with it. Medical equipment is necessary and a good thing so I can appreciate those willing to do it. Flock cameras are not necessary and while maybe not a bad thing they aren't a great thing either. Those that work on shit like Flock are no better than the waste of space and resources those that work in adtech are.

> > Most of the time it does.

> Citation needed

This is the most damning part of the ALPR rollout for me. If cops were successfully using this technology they'd be beating that drum loud and proud at all hours.

> If cops were successfully using this technology they'd be beating that drum loud and proud at all hours.

See also anti-terrorism efforts. "Supporters" will argue they keep quiet about their successes for opsec-type reasons or to hide their methods. But we are perfectly happy to publicise blowing fishing boats out of the water so I don't believe that for a second. These people can't help but brag.

No, these cameras are used to erode our rights and let police stalk their ex's/women/etc without consequences.

I used to know some govvies who were FBI analysts. There are more foiled terrorism plots than get reported for sure. That is the word at least at the FBI as of maybe 15 years ago.

Equally likely is that your friends were trying to make themselves sound more important and made unverifiable statements and let your existing trust relationship do the lifting.

That kid in middle school didn't have a girlfriend in Canada, and the FBI (documented on multiple occasions to have fabricated and entrapped people into "terror plots") didn't quietly stop a ton of terrorist plots.

That'd be a no that they both would say that for those reasons. One might, but not both.

They certainly do in my area! Which is why I appreciate the cameras.

Why make this comment but not include the citation now two people have asked for?

Because I'm just relaying my personal experience rather than writing a scholarly article?