Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
50% Positive
Analyzed from 590 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#public#should#children#license#find#cameras#flock#online#argument#don
Discussion Sentiment
Analyzed from 590 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
Discussion (20 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Your hysterics about photographing children in a park is silly and no one but the most online ideologue would find it at all comparable. Find a better argument if you want to convince other reasonable people who just want to live in safe neighborhoods and don't care much about your verbal word games and stretched analogies
> Find a better argument
That is just a reversed no-true-scottsman fallacy. If the poster's "hysterics" are a poor argument, please break down why rather than just calling it silly.
It is obvious that many in this community are against wholesale collection of information, public or private, as evidenced by the thousands of posts that state such reservations.
Posts on forums are not real life. Look at revealed preferences. Many people have cameras on their property. People prefer to live in neighborhoods with well funded police with tech resources.
Again, it's entirely reasonable to collect license plates and use it to apprehend criminals. Crime is a thing, almost everyone is affected by it at some point in their lives. I don't need a proof or study, it's common sense. You know it's true but you're just pretending you don't understand.
I'm calling out, specifically, that "A camera capturing an image of a license plate that is openly displayed on a vehicle is not searching for someone's private life. It is recording what anyone standing on the same street could already observe."
... implies that a very absurd and objectionable thing like folks standing around each playground recording children and comparing notes is actually also supported by that defense and that we should consider if that defense is objectionable or not based on what it enables as much as what it is defending.
On this very forum, you can find backlash against geofencing, and here, support for flock cameras? The contradiction is bananas. Automated logging of people in public places is dystopian. You can object with that claim, fine.
You went from recording license plates on public roads to logging people in public places.
If someone steals my car, I would want to be able to give police my license plate and have them track down the person very easily by all the cameras on public roads. This is not dystopian. This is what an orderly society should look like.
You're talking about children and random stuff that's completely irrelevant. If you can't or refuse to see that, I can't convince you.
There's more than one person on this forum. Why do you expect consistency? Different people have different opinions. Different people comment on different articles. HN is not a hivemind; don't expect consistency.
But sure, "word games". Sure.
Do you actually believe this?
(which... we should, if we have the data to do it, why not actually enforce traffic laws?)
There should not be any system that allows a person to be continuously tracked at all times short of as a consequence of criminal activity with a judge signing off on it.
It's so basic that a 3rd grader gets it.