text0404

Chatrie. It's about the use of the data, not the data itself.

Law enforcement searches a database of recorded, retained, aggregated data about people who have not committed crimes: this constitutes a fourth amendment search. Go ahead and record all you want, but when law enforcement decides to use that data, they have to get a warrant.

The government does need a warrant to surveil someone, though. Which is what is happening here: a third party surveils citizens and the government searches that data.

ALPRs weren't connected to companies which call their detractors "terrorists" and which collect photographs into searchable databases that have advanced AI features. The general public has also witnessed the rise of military-style policing and unaccountable violence from law enforcement, so that contributes to the negative sentiment.

Those photographs go into a searchable database.

Sure, but putting that data into a persistent database which law enforcement searches on demand is a violation of the fourth amendment.

The government does need a warrant to surveil me, though, and multiple court cases have found that using an intermediate third party doesn't absolve the government from adhering to the fourth amendment.

This is a western take on the situation. Another take would be that the US/Israel are the largest force for destabilization in the middle east (see also Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, and Iran itself from 1953-onward).

> They would not stand a chance

The west would absolutely lose a ground war in Iran. Iran has been preparing for an invasion for 50 years, the terrain isn't like other countries in the region and is incredibly hostile to a ground invasion, and the IRGC will fight to the bloody end (see also the Iran-Iraq war).

Here's the Wikipedia page, it's a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Fut...

It's relevant today more than ever:

> [It argues] that the Industrial Revolution began a harmful process of natural destruction brought about by technology. Furthermore it states that forcing humans to adapt to machinery creates a sociopolitical order that suppresses human potential and freedom. [...] The manifesto states that the public largely accepts individual technological advancements as purely positive without accounting for their overall effect, including the erosion of local and individual freedom and autonomy.

To begin, I'm most interested in his argument that technology can become autonomous to the point that human beings can no longer control it and will become reliant on it, undermining human agency. AI will accelerate this issue and will be used by elites to subjugate lower classes.

From the Wikipedia page for Industrial Society and Its Future:

> [He argues] that the Industrial Revolution began a harmful process of natural destruction brought about by technology. Furthermore it states that forcing humans to adapt to machinery creates a sociopolitical order that suppresses human potential and freedom. [...] The manifesto states that the public largely accepts individual technological advancements as purely positive without accounting for their overall effect, including the erosion of local and individual freedom and autonomy.

This leads to some interesting questions. Do human beings still have autonomy if we allow our decisionmaking to be offloaded to machines? Is technological progress for the sake of progress a good thing? Does it serve humanity? If it does serve humanity, who does it serve and at what cost? What does our society become when human beings no longer have purpose?

Independently, Bill Joy quoted Kaczynski in a Wired article in 2000, arguing that unregulated technology can lead us down a dystopian path: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_the_Future_Doesn%27t_Need_...

People who resort to violence against civilians are largely wingnuts. I'm saying that most people who seriously consider his ideas are engaging with his geopolitical analyses, not his religious fanaticism.

I don't agree with bin Laden or his methods, but that's not in this letter.

In the first section of the letter, "Why are we fighting and opposing you?", he describes atrocities committed by the United States and its allies. I think that part is what people reference as "astute points."

You don't have to love a person to understand or consider their ideas. Ted Kaczynski is a good example of an American intellectual with many philosophically worthy ideas, even if you find his methods horrific.

Yes, he seems to be using that dataset.

Can you tell me how the table of numbers was generated? All it says is that it was "calculated" by ChatGPT. This guy is an econ professor; where's his reproducible methodology?

Further, he's treating this 2022 snapshot as a timeseries as if the various categories are tracking the same people over time. Just because 80 year olds in the data are wealthier than the younger brackets doesn't mean that those are the same people (in fact, those 80 year olds are boomers who grew up during a time of unprecedented financial growth and stability in the US, and who currently own a massive amount of housing in the US and are refusing to retire and allow younger people to take their high-paying jobs).

I can continue but those are the most egregious issues to begin with and I'm tired of reading this slop.

Are you also comparing benefits and cost of living? That fast food worker cannot afford an apartment, groceries, or healthcare after taxes. God help them if they have children. Further, what little safety nets that exist in the United States are being gutted by the current administration and the likes of DOGE, which was run by a billionaire who paid a massive sum of money to the current administration to be put in a position to cut government benefits.

Wow, there's so much wrong with this "statistical analysis" to the point of absurdity. Goes to show that even a 30-year economics professor can be duped by AI.

People who are well-versed in fields like fashion will create original designs which include yarn requirements, needle size, measurements, stitch instructions, construction steps, etc etc and sell them in online marketplaces like Etsy or Revelry.

You'll salute a lake but allow masked thugs to execute citizens in the middle of the street. "Patriotism" really is a hollow concept in America, huh?

That happened over 30 years ago. It was a different culture back then, with a lot fewer billionaires with cozy connections with the government.

Ah yes, a reference to the notable leftists Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump.

> After WWII they were distributed chapters (Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Invisible Empire, Imperial Klans of America, National Knights, etc.)

Right, terrorist groups with organizational structure and national leadership, spawned from the original KKK. We're confused about the national organization which you seem to be referring to, because "anti fascist" is not a group.

The leaders of the Klan are well known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaders_of_the_Ku_Klux_Klan

Your comment can be summarized as "there is no explosion of 'bad' things occurring, but we should have more surveillance anyways." How does that conclusion follow from your premise? If crime rates have remained steady and there's been no increase in "bad things" are happening, why do we need a surveillance state?

> We saw Erin Brokovich and then proceeded to block the building of literally everything

These kinds of generalizations are so ridiculous as to be completely useless. You keep saying that we're blocking "everything"... what? Nobody is claiming that we need to stop building (in your words) "literally everything". This is called a "straw man".

> But it turns out there's a middle ground between "Mass cancer and death" and "total ban on new things."

Yes, and environmental impact studies move us away from the "mass cancer and death" while still allowing "things" to be built.

> what about Datacenters is uniquely bad

- Excessive water consumption which is especially bad in areas that experience droughts

- Excessive electricity consumption which strains power grids which have not had time to adapt (also causing wildly increased bills for local residents)

- Continuous operation which exacerbates the above issues (compared to "factories, malls, golf courses, pools, etc" which largely operate for only a portion of the day)

- More land use, making the nearby land uninhabitable due to noise as well as other environmental impacts for local wildlife

> Or do you not like the idea of resource usage at all, even if residential and renewable? Are we afraid of wasting the sun's precious energy? I'm struggling to understand.

I'm struggling to understand where on earth you got this? It seems like you're just inventing arguments to debate against. I never said anything like this.

Thanks for telling me how I think. If we're doing that, let me tell you how you think: you don't care about people and want to pursue profit over human life, and will go to any length to defend a private corporation over the people who have to live with the negative impacts of its poor decisions.

Not sure if you're aware of this, but a large portion of the infrastructure that was built before environmental impact studies existed caused severe health issues for the surrounding communities, including cancer and death. That's why we have environmental impact studies now.

> If you were asked, would you have voted to allow the building of your own home, the infrastructure and roads around it, and the businesses whose tax revenue funds your local municipality you suddenly are so concerned about?

If there were proper studies on the environmental and economic impacts, instead of blindly building without due diligence. The issue is that data centers are being built without this kind of analysis, at huge cost to the surrounding communities.

> One of the most bizarre contradictions of this current moment is the simultaneous anger at things being expensive and also anger towards building anything.

This seems like you're being purposefully obtuse, given the context in long thread you're replying to. It's not against "building anything", it's data centers which harm the surrounding communities.

But Chatrie found that the geofence was unconstitutional because of the wide dragnet which included people not suspected of crimes, not because those people were in private spaces:

> The Court held that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they obtained Chatrie's location data, because, as the opinion put it, "an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information."

The analogue with Flock is pretty clear then:

> Just as important as the holding is the reasoning: the Court rejected the government's fallback argument that the search was fine because it only pulled a narrow, time-limited slice of a much larger dataset. Once the Fourth Amendment applies, the majority reasoned, it doesn't matter how small a bite investigators took out of an all-encompassing database.

A lot of people in academia are mission driven - they don't care about the money, they care about the application of their work to benefit humanity and don't want to exist as a cog in a private corporation's profits. I think this mentality of "scientists just want to get paid a lot of money" is contributing to the anti-science views that are so pervasive in America these days. Some people are motivated by more than just profit.

Unfortunately, leftists rely on Americans ability to empathize with the plight of the vassal states in the world which have been pillaged and destroyed in service of the most prosperous and advanced societies. It is obvious at this point that Americans do not have empathy and will gladly accept the state of the world as long as they don't have to witness the injustice of it.

Except the defense has shown that the police blocked opening an additional lane even after the protestors specifically requested it for emergency traffic, and in fact blocked more lanes unnecessarily.

> Defense attorneys argued that many of the risks to people stuck in traffic could have been mitigated — including the traffic itself — if the median had been moved to open a fourth lane on the southbound side. They said a protester designated to communicate with the CHP specifically asked for that to happen to allow emergency vehicles to access anyone who needed one.

> Northbound traffic was also stopped by the CHP as a multitude of emergency vehicles responded to the bridge, which defense attorneys pointed out would have created the same type of risks the prosecution said people were experiencing because of the protesters.

https://localnewsmatters.org/2026/05/29/gaza-protesters-gold...

So he wasn't proven guilty in a court of law, and everything that you're saying is conjecture based on your non-expert opinion? "Guilty until proven innocent," was it?

> Guilty until proven innocent

This is a description of your stance on Alex Pretti.