Hacker News Reader

Comment by nullbio | Hacker News Reader

Nice hyperbole. I'm concerned about govt listening to our private conversations and mining our inner dialogue. I could not care less if they know when my car passes a camera in public. People are instantly very emotional about this without reflecting on why. If you want to live in a safe country, you must give up some level of freedom. That's life. Otherwise, why not just ban all forms of surveillance? Make it a rule that unless police witness a crime first-hand, no one can be prosecuted? See how that plays out.

View on HN

I think that a reasonable argument that tracking someone's movements can give significant insight into private communication. If you know who someone is talking to, when, where, and how often, then you can deduce a lot of what they are communicating.

I'm not sure about your argument about giving up freedom for security. One of the quotes that has become embedded in American social consciousness is Ben Franklin's "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

Great quote, but I don't consider this "essential liberty".

I get that you don't agree with it, but that quote is part of most American's understanding of our country. If the government derives its authority from the people, then that has to matter.

>If you want to live in a safe country, you must give up some level of freedom

Is that why prisons so safe and free of crime? How is that life? Electronic mass surveillance is how old, the late 90s?

Yes, let's ban all mass surveillance. I know where that gets you, the 70s or 80s when the height of technology was localized tape CCTV in a handful of places. Did everyone die and everything burn down? How can anyone with a straight face be this hysterical when most people currently alive grew up without any surveillance

The US in the 70's and 80's is not comparable to current US given different socioeconomic factors. China is far safer than the US is, if you want an accurate example.

> Is that why prisons so safe and free of crime?

Surveilled prisons are safer than non-surveilled ones. Compare a technology forward prison with a prison in a third world country if you want an example.

>The US in the 70's and 80's is not comparable to current US given different socioeconomic factors

The socioeconomic factors have become more favorable. Excluding surveillance there's been a secular crime drop due to aging demographics, family planning / abortions, potentially even decline in lead etc. The US is not as safe as China, but it's safer than the US 40 years ago all other things held equal. Of course an authoritarian state is safer but that's meaningless to compare yourself to if you value freedom.

What's actually changed is an absolute spread of paranoia and fear of imagined threats even in neighborhoods that look like as idyllic as a Scandinavian village.

So tracking your location without a warrant isn't a surveillance state problem? No right to privacy in public doesn't mean there should be the complete elimination of it, especially by the people supposed to represent us.

https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/victory-federal-...

It is. That's why I said "If they have better accountability in terms of law enforcement using it (warrant requirements, transparency, etc) I see no problem with it."

To be clear, I am not in favor of Flock in its current incarnation. I am in favor of it if these safeguards are introduced.

Crimes can be investigated without always-on survellience. Like has been done for decades.

Are all these deployed cameras actually solving crimes? What are the numbers? Aren't there already a bunch of other ways to track cars, like onstar sim chips?

Always-on survellience is always abused. It's already abused by US police officers. tracking their x-wives for example, the new boyfriends, etc. And there's room for much worse. Many of us grew up hearing about things that totalitarian communist governments were doing. The East German's would have loved to have such technologies.

New capabilities are being rolled out by flock- facial recognition and bluetooth tracking, for example.

This seems to be another example of the government contracting with private companies to do things that would be illegal for the government to do themselves.

Historically stuff like this ends up being abused by the establishment. facial recognition in Hong Kong. Protesters dissappeared. Stingray phone tracking in Portland. Protesters picked up by black SUVs. Freezing bank accounts in Ottawa. ICE deporting people without due process. Just keeps getting worse.

Think of all the modern niceties we enjoy that protesters earned. Will protesters of the future stand a chance when everyone is tracked all the time?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com