That's easy. Person gets kidnapped, government surveillance camera helps police find the car before the kidnapper kills them. Or, probably more common: murder happens, government surveillance camera helps police find murderer and jail them before they kill someone else.
That's why these cameras are so prevalent, the case for them is extremely obvious and easy to make (give police more tools to stop bad guys), while the case against them is a lot more subtle (human freedom, government abuse, expectations of privacy, risk of data breaches, etc).
> Person gets kidnapped, government surveillance camera helps police find the car before the kidnapper kills them. Or, probably more common: murder happens, government surveillance camera helps police find murderer and jail them before they kill someone else.
It's a good steelman/devil's advocate of their position, but I wonder if proponents realize how much wishful thinking drives those supposed outcomes.
I don't think it's wishful thinking. Flock advertises how many actual, real-world cases their cameras have contributed to solving, and even just reading news reports on murder trials you'll often see comments like "suspect's car was caught on camera traveling such and such direction" in the timeline of events.
The question isn't whether these cameras help law enforcement. Of course they do. The question is whether that's sufficient justification for continuous government surveillance of the public movements of millions of law abiding citizens.
I don’t mean that I can’t imagine a scenario in which an imagined world has cameras covering every square inch, a 911 operator with their fingers hovering over the keyboard and ready to enter a license plate into the InstaLocate system, which then automatically triggers SWAT to be quick-released from a drone directly onto the current location of what is still called a “getaway car”, rather than “evidence.” But I can also imagine a situation with less steps wherein a spoon takes down an F-16, but I equally haven’t heard an argument for using spoons as air defense. ;)
Helping to solve a crime after the fact is certainly a thing, and that discussion has merit, but I think you’re taking creative license again with stopping a serial killer or spree killer “before they kill again.” That’s not really how murders play out, which is why there are special names for them.
It would be helpful for discourse, and for making your own argument, if the discussion was grounded in the reality of the sour world we live in now.
So is it your position, based on what you just said, that people who have committed murder but have not yet been caught are no more likely to commit murder a second time than the average person?
I think my example of helping police catch a murderer "before they kill again" is not only "grounded in reality" but has, in fact, quite plausibly already happened thousands of times throughout the course of Flock's existence.
Now, whether I think that justifies mass surveillance is another matter entirely.
My friend, I've said only what I've said. Past my casual "that's not really how murders play out", through the comma, sits "special name”, which isn't "the general population." Serial killer, serial murderer, and spree killer aren't synonyms for general population. The mere existence of those terms gave you all the information you needed to determine that they’re distinct from the general population and simple “murderer”, and my mention of them should have implied my understanding of the same.
Your assertions in every comment so far have been fully balanced on what you ‘feel like’ should be the case, not on known facts. I’ll give you an example:
“quite plausibly already happened thousands of times throughout the course of Flock's existence.”
‘
FBI monograph, July 2008: "Serial Murder: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives for Investigators"
Introduction on page 1:
"Serial murder is a relatively rare event, estimated to comprise less than one percent of all murders committed in any given year."
‘
The FBI used to classify serial murder as 3+ murders with a cooling off period between them, but that resulted in too few cases to bother studying, so by the time of the quoted statement they had reduced it to 2+ separate murder events. Seems like it fits our discussion.
In 2008 there were 16,465 homicides, so if we take “less than 1%” to be a healthy 0.5% that would be ~82. Even if you assume every year spawns a fresh new set of 82 serial murderers then Flock would have needed to contribute to catching every single one this century in order to meet the minimum requirements for “thousands.”
Of course there’s no way of telling if the murderer you caught would have become a serial murderer if not caught, so here’s where your intuition can be helpful. Take the 82, spread them around the country in densities that you ‘feel’ are appropriate. Do the same for the density of Flock cameras. Then use the same rigor when guessing at how many of the 82 just got witnessed committing a murder, and their license plate was noted, and they happen to transit an area with Flock camera license plate readers in the future while still driving the same car. Feel your way through to how many of them might be caught, then intuit what it would take to catch “thousands.”
Okay, dozens, not thousands. My point still stands.
If you really want to split hairs over the exact number, maybe also consider the number of murderers who committed other crimes prior to their first murder, and whether getting caught sooner in their criminal career might have prevented such escalations, plus the larger society-wide deterrent effect of the increased clearance rates of crimes in all categories.
You don't need to run any numbers to see my original comment was obviously correct, I'm not sure why you're contesting this so hard.
Yes, but when moral panic reaches the ears and minds of people in government, who see government as the solution to every problem and don't tend to think much about limits to their own power (I'm a good guy with good intentions, why would you want to limit me?), this is the type of solution you tend to get.
The thing is, I want smart features, I just don't want those smart features to be tied to the display. A separate box allows more consumer choice, which is generally a better experience. Easily flashable firmware would be an acceptable alternative for the same reason.
I'd be happy with a setup box giving me the ability to add apps for streaming services or whatever, but I don't want that STB spying on my either. I feel like even if all TVs were dumb monitors we'd just be moving the real problem of insane levels of data collection and spying to another device. We need strong regulation with real teeth to prevent the spying at which point all of our devices should be protected.
Hi-fi and AV enthusiasts have known that "separates" is where it's at since the beginning. Unfortunately it's such a small segment compared to mass market junk "content" devices and it's only shrinking as more people are seduced by the convenience of the shit stuff.
A separate box allows more consumer choice, which is generally a better experience.
In the life of my last TV (10+ yrs), I've had to switch out that separate box three times. It would have sucked & been way more expensive to have had to replace the TV each time.
Firmware can be updated, sure, but there's the risk of some internal component failing. There's the risk of the services I want to use not being compatible. I'd also prefer to use an operating system I'm familiar with, because, well, I'm familiar with it, rather than some custom firmware from a TV company whose goal is to sell your data, not make a good user experience...
Of course, this ties back to the enshittification of the Internet. Every company is trying to be a data broker now though, because they see it as free passive income.
Regarding the failure of internal components--there are some 'failure' modes which I had not even contemplated previously.
I have a TV that's only about 5-6 years old and has a built in Roku. It mostly works fine, but the built in hardware is simply not fast enough to play some streaming services, specifically some stuff on F1TV. And before anyone asks, it's not a bandwidth problem--I have gigabit fiber and the TV is using ethernet.
Anyway, between that, general UI sluggishness and the proliferation of ads in the Roku interface, I switched to an Apple TV and haven't looked back.
Since 1791, the right to be armed has been considered a fundamental human right in the US, on the same level as freedom of speech and religion. You're fighting an uphill battle by trying to argue we should take away people's fundamental human rights in the name of public safety. To many, it's essentially no different from if you were trying to argue we should take away people's rights to free speech because some people use that right to promote violence.
Whether you think that makes the gun situation "hopeless" depends on whether you think there are other ways to reduce violence without taking away the rights of law abiding citizens.
That's simply not true. That's a very modern interpretation of the second amendment.
The /NRA/ lobbied for some of the first gun control laws in SanFran, because the Black Panthers were open carrying. Even in the days of the 'wild west' there were plenty of towns and cities with enforced gun control ordinances.
Just as we have anti-defamation laws despite freedom of speech being a constitutionally protected right, you can have gun control laws despite carrying guns being a constitutionally protected right. I don't think that makes what I said untrue. Such laws (in both cases) are kept on a very short leash, both from a legal and a cultural perspective.
The more fundamental human right is the right to not be blasted by an angry teenager who's been reading crazy things on the internet. In the hierarchy of human rights, that once has precedence.
You can misread what I wrote and argue against all that strawman all day if you like.
You haven't even represented the true content of the 2nd amendment so there's nothing to talk about here. The 2nd amendment is about militias, not "give everyone and their toddler access to massive fire power at all times".
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Tell me where that says guns should be available to deranged person who wants one. Everyone should get a hand gun, a rifle, and a shotgun, and make it double.
I didn't misread, you're missing the point. I'm saying your argument for infringing on the second amendment is equally valid for infringing on the first. (Which is to say, not very valid at all.)
You did misread my post. My argument does not say that at all, and I cannot see how it possibly could. My argument is that reducing the number of guns would reduce the number of gun deaths.
They got away with accidentally unlawfully killing a man while doing an inherently dangerous job by the book. You can blame the system for that certainly and propose changes, but I don't think it's fair to charge the officers with murder for acting in what they believed to be fully justified self defense in the normal course of their job.
I think what's fair is to expect police officers to have as their top priority the protection the citizens they are serving. Too often they seem to have as a top priority the protection of themselves, which means as a consequence that they'd rather risk the lives of others than their own. What good are they to us then?
Very weird question. What do you think most jobs entail? Driving, mining, warehousing, even office jobs all come with risks. Perhaps the most relevant example though is firefighting. Just like in policing, there is obvious risk you take on in exchange for early retirement etc.
The last mindset I want policemen to have is to go into every situation assuming the worst because of a small chance their safety may be at risk. Which is exactly what it seems happened.
You can't just shoot someone who's holding a bag with something in it just because some random person has judged it could be a firearm.
“The officers had told the inquest that Mr. Stanley had turned around ‘in a slow, deliberate, fluid motion’ and pointed his wrapped-up table leg at PC Fagan, adopting a classic firing posture, which prompted Chief Insp. Sharman to open fire, hitting him in the head.” [1]
Yeah right, that definitely happened. An innocent man is dead because some damn pig wanted to kill someone. That is all this is.
"Times Online reports a “furious reaction from fellow police marksmen, who are threatening to lay down their weapons in a rebellion which could hamper security plans for the G8 summit of international leaders. Some members of the Yard’s elite SO19 firearms unit are already refusing to carry guns, saying that these arrests have shattered morale.”" [1]
I travel to work, and engaging with the outdoors, traffic, etc. involves sacrificing safety that I wouldn't have if I stayed at home.
So, how much would my employer need to pay me? Not much, I guess? I definitely get paid less than the average cop in my city.
There are plenty of jobs that involve sacrificing safety, but very few of them give you the opportunity to kill people because you "didn't want to give up your own safety".
> At the junction of Fremont Street and Victoria Park Road in South Hackney, close to his home, Inspector Neil Sharman and PC Kevin Fagan, the crew of a Metropolitan Police armed response vehicle challenged Stanley from behind. As he turned to face them, they shot him dead at a distance of 15 feet (5 m).
While it may have been an accident, it was a negligent accident. If I accidentally killed someone with a gun I would go to prison. In addition they were found guilty by the jury. It was overturned due to political pressure.
It's not normally dangerous, on average. That doesn't mean confronting an armed suspect in a dangerous part of town is "safe" and that there's no reason for officers to get jumpy when that person turns and appears to point a concealed gun at them.
I'm not saying I know a better solution, but punishing officers for acting in what they believed to be self-defense in a very scary life-threatening situation doesn't seem particularly helpful. If you put your employees in a situation where they feel like they have to chose between a possible trip to jail and a possible trip to the morgue, they're going to pick jail every time, assuming they're even dumb enough to put themselves in that situation by working for you in the first place.
I agree it's not the correct solution because the issue is systemic, not individual. Punishing individual officers won't affect the overlying system.
But it's important to note that officers are specifically taught to be jumpy and aggressive. That's not a natural response. The reason we see so many accidental shooting is because the training around it encourages it. Accidentally shooting a few innocent people in the pursuit of stamping out crime is a necessary evil in the eyes of American police.
Ultimately, the police only really know how to shoot, and we put them in situations they're not equipped to handle. It's not shocking, then, that people end up getting shot. They truly have no business doing wellness calls, or mental health assistance, or even routine traffic stops.
I hadn't heard of Agnos before, interesting alternative to ACME-DNS.
Looking at the README, is the idea that the certificates get generated on the DNS server itself? Not by the ACME client on each machine that needs a certificate? That seems like a confusing design choice to me. How do you get the certificate back to the web server that actually needs it? Or is the idea that you'd have a single server which acts as both the DNS server and the web server?
Oh, sweet! I didn't know about this. I have no need of wildcard certs, but this will greatly simplify the process of issuing certificates for internal services behind my local firewall. No need to maintain an acme-dns server; just configure the ACME client, set the DNS record and you're done? Very nice.
The same place they've always gone: to consumers purchasing the products made by those automated processes.
The average person now is far wealthier in terms of actual purchasing power than the average person 100 years ago, and that's largely because of automation making everything cheaper.
> The average person now is far wealthier in terms of actual purchasing power than the average person 100 years ago
access to housing is incredibly expensive. Measuring their purchasing power for how many scented candles they can buy is pretty meaningless when they are much closer to homelessness than ever before.
Land is one thing you can't automate the production of, and construction still consists mostly of manual skilled labor. But I think despite that you'll find housing today still compares very favorably to housing 100 years ago (in terms of median square footage, safety, amenities, etc).
> The same place they've always gone: to consumers purchasing the products made by those automated processes.
The people who are "automated away" and have reduced income are also less of a consumer. In a society where most jobs are automated, who are the consumers?
You've spent your whole life living in a society where that's already happened. 1000 years ago nearly everyone was employed in agriculture. Now nearly all those jobs are automated.
So you tell me: where are the consumers? Why aren't we all unemployed and unable to afford to buy anything now that those agriculture jobs have been automated away? Or did we find other productive activities to spend our time on?
This sentiment is constantly echoed on this site -- "just look at past times where tech removed jobs, this is no different". But the difference now is that we will soon have super-humans in terms of intelligence, dexterity (robots), and cost (cheaper, no healthcare, etc.).
I put the onus on the yay-sayers, can you name a job that a human can do that this new AI / robot cannot (or will not soon) do? Otherwise, I think its time to stop drawing false equivalence with agriculture, luddites, etc. Those were "narrow" machines, incapable of coding, writing a symphony, or working in a factory. In the next decade we're talking about building a better human.
I think a better example is to draw a parallel to horses. There is nothing left for them to do; we keep a few around for sport and entertainment, as a novelty. At one time, they were indispensible, but there's no rule that any organism (including humans) has infinite economically viable uses. At some point, everything worth doing (economically) might be automated to the point that human labor no longer makes sense (and hence we have high unemployment). There is no cosmic law written that "if jobs are replaced by tech, new jobs shall fill the space!" Just look at areas in the rust belt where literally nothing replaced the lost jobs -- there is just rampant unemployment, black market dealing / drugs, and despair.
That's a very different argument about a hypothetical future problem that may or may not ever actually materialize. (I'd argue given the current trajectory of AI it probably won't for the foreseeable future.)
But yes, if we develop artificial superinteligence to the level where humans become literally useless (e.g. we don't just automate 90% of everything, but 100%, and there's actually no tasks left in the world that humans can do better or cheaper than computers) then assuming humanity survives we'll need a different economic system for distributing the nearly-unlimited resources resulting from that. Probably in that situation the best thing to do would be to ask the AI to design our new economic system, since it would obviously do a better job at that than any human.
Couldn't it get a lot worse much sooner than that? Even if a handful of industries collapse, its not clear we have more jobs for 100M displaced workers. I just haven't seen any proposals of what that future looks like that seem good, but I do hear "don't worry more jobs will appear". But can anyone say where 50-100M workers will go? All the answers I think of or see seem like things that can easily be automated.
Depending on how much gets automated and how quickly, yes that could be a temporary, short-term problem. I personally think the transition will happen slowly enough that it'll barely be noticeable, but if I'm wrong and we somehow automate 50M people out of a job in the space of a few years, that will indeed lead to an oversupply in the labor market, temporarily resulting in high unemployment and low wages for workers with the affected skillsets (including unskilled workers).
Where displaced workers will go though is not something that can or should be planned out in a centralized fashion, because the best answer to that question is different for each individual and depends on their skills, preferences, and life situation, balanced against the needs and desires of other consumers in the unimaginably complex web that is the global economy.
Despite not knowing exactly where everyone will end up though, I think I can still be confident that they will find something, because the incentives to do so are very strong, both on a personal level (needing to find work) and the entrepreneurial level (finding useful things for displaced workers to do could make you very rich).
As another commenter put it a while back, unemployed workers are an unused resource, and the economy is very good at finding uses for unused resources.
> This argument hinges rather strongly on whether or not AI is going to create a broad, durable, and lasting unemployment effect.
I think GP's argument makes a pretty strong case that it won't, even if AI somehow successfully automates 99% of all currently existing tasks. We automated away 99% of jobs once during the agricultural revolution and it didn't result in "a broad, durable, and lasting unemployment effect" then. Quite the opposite in fact.
Maybe if AI actually automates 100% of everything then we'll need to think about this more. But that seems unlikely to happen anytime in the foreseeable future given the current trajectory of the technology. (Even 50% seems unlikely.)
I think it's fine to discuss solutions to hypothetical future problems as long as it's clear that these are hypothetical future problems you're talking about, not present reality.
In many of these discussions that line seems to get blurred and I start to get the impression people are using the specter of a vague, poorly understood hypothetical future problem to argue for concrete societal changes now.
The argument for these cameras is that they save lives. The argument against them is that they destroy freedom.
reply