17 ms·

The public safety of no people having different political opinion, of no people who would want to raise awareness on the problem of Amazon for this instance, be

by tajen 8y ago

The public safety of no people having different political opinion, of no people who would want to raise awareness on the problem of Amazon for this instance, because they could cause unsafe words being told to your ears.

darawk 8y ago
Whoa whoa, there. Who said that? Facial recognition is a tool. You seem to be extrapolating some dystopian fantasy from this. The fact that your face can be tracked does not mean your speech will be curtailed, those two things are fairly unrelated. Now, there are real privacy implications to facial recognition and tracking. Serious ones. There are also benefits for law enforcement. Personally, I come down on the side that the privacy is worth more than the benefit to law enforcement. But that doesn't mean that that benefit isn't real.
- danShumway 8y ago
  > The fact that your face can be tracked does not mean your speech will be curtailed, those two things are fairly unrelated. Anonymity is one of the most effective tools for preserving free speech. If you can't speak anonymously, you're more likely to self censor what you say. If you can't consume information anonymously, you're unlikely to seek out or research unpopular views or ideas. Barring massive social changes that are realistically never going to happen, a world where your identity and actions are always visible is a world without free speech.
  - darawk 8y ago
    I agree with some of the principles you're articulating here, but I think the general class of position you're taking here is a bad one. Free speech has an actual meaning. It means the government does not restrict speech. Tracking people does not restrict speech. It may impose a social cost on you for speaking, but it does not prevent you from doing so. Nowhere in the constitution of the United States, nor any constitution that i'm aware of, does it say that you are to be insulated from the social consequences of speaking your mind. Nor do any guarantee the right to anonymity in public spaces. Now, will this have a chilling effect on certain kinds of speech? Most likely, yes. Should we be concerned about that? Probably. But please, do not conflate 'free speech' with 'freedom from social consequences'.
    - danShumway 8y ago
      I disagree that freedom of speech can be so neatly boxed into such a narrow definition, but that isn't really the point I was trying to make. Ignoring broader social issues and focusing purely on the government, citizen monitoring can be (and often is) utilized by governments to curtail free speech. People joke about the NSA monitoring them, but that absolutely has an impact on free speech - people are less likely to search something online the government finds distasteful when they know they're being monitored. Note that this is true even if the thing they'd search is legal. If the government can monitor which events you show up at or what you read, does that make you more likely to be put on a no-fly list? Does that make it more likely for the government to pursue a separate legal action that it otherwise might ignore?
      - darawk 8y ago
        > Ignoring broader social issues and focusing purely on the government, citizen monitoring can be (and often is) utilized by governments to curtail free speech. People joke about the NSA monitoring them, but that absolutely has an impact on free speech It has an impact on speech. It does not have an impact on freedom to speak. The fact that a social architecture changes behavior does not mean that it restricts it. This difference is important. This does not mean that the right to anonymity is not important. It may well be. It just isn't the same thing as the right to free speech, and they shouldn't be conflated. I understand the desire to conflate them - anchoring the right to anonymity to the more recognized right of free speech gives it greater moral force. That's why people make arguments like that. But in so doing it lassoes the even more important right of actual free speech to the probably less important right of anonymous speech. It tethers them in a way that exposes the weaknesses of the lesser right to the greater one. Free speech is the right to say whatever you want without government interference. The right to anonymity may be important to, but let it stand on its own. > If the government can monitor which events you show up at or what you read, does that make you more likely to be put on a no-fly list? Does that make it more likely for the government to pursue a separate legal action that it otherwise might ignore? Lots of things make you more or less likely to do various things. That is not the same as curtailing your right to do them. Changing organ donation from opt-in to opt-out increases the right at which people choose it. That is not the same thing as forcible organ harvesting.

by tajen 8y ago

darawk 8y ago

Whoa whoa, there. Who said that? Facial recognition is a tool. You seem to be extrapolating some dystopian fantasy from this. The fact that your face can be tracked does not mean your speech will be curtailed, those two things are fairly unrelated. Now, there are real privacy implications to facial recognition and tracking. Serious ones. There are also benefits for law enforcement. Personally, I come down on the side that the privacy is worth more than the benefit to law enforcement. But that doesn't mean that that benefit isn't real.

danShumway 8y ago
> The fact that your face can be tracked does not mean your speech will be curtailed, those two things are fairly unrelated. Anonymity is one of the most effective tools for preserving free speech. If you can't speak anonymously, you're more likely to self censor what you say. If you can't consume information anonymously, you're unlikely to seek out or research unpopular views or ideas. Barring massive social changes that are realistically never going to happen, a world where your identity and actions are always visible is a world without free speech.
- darawk 8y ago
  I agree with some of the principles you're articulating here, but I think the general class of position you're taking here is a bad one. Free speech has an actual meaning. It means the government does not restrict speech. Tracking people does not restrict speech. It may impose a social cost on you for speaking, but it does not prevent you from doing so. Nowhere in the constitution of the United States, nor any constitution that i'm aware of, does it say that you are to be insulated from the social consequences of speaking your mind. Nor do any guarantee the right to anonymity in public spaces. Now, will this have a chilling effect on certain kinds of speech? Most likely, yes. Should we be concerned about that? Probably. But please, do not conflate 'free speech' with 'freedom from social consequences'.
  - danShumway 8y ago
    I disagree that freedom of speech can be so neatly boxed into such a narrow definition, but that isn't really the point I was trying to make. Ignoring broader social issues and focusing purely on the government, citizen monitoring can be (and often is) utilized by governments to curtail free speech. People joke about the NSA monitoring them, but that absolutely has an impact on free speech - people are less likely to search something online the government finds distasteful when they know they're being monitored. Note that this is true even if the thing they'd search is legal. If the government can monitor which events you show up at or what you read, does that make you more likely to be put on a no-fly list? Does that make it more likely for the government to pursue a separate legal action that it otherwise might ignore?
    - darawk 8y ago
      > Ignoring broader social issues and focusing purely on the government, citizen monitoring can be (and often is) utilized by governments to curtail free speech. People joke about the NSA monitoring them, but that absolutely has an impact on free speech It has an impact on speech. It does not have an impact on freedom to speak. The fact that a social architecture changes behavior does not mean that it restricts it. This difference is important. This does not mean that the right to anonymity is not important. It may well be. It just isn't the same thing as the right to free speech, and they shouldn't be conflated. I understand the desire to conflate them - anchoring the right to anonymity to the more recognized right of free speech gives it greater moral force. That's why people make arguments like that. But in so doing it lassoes the even more important right of actual free speech to the probably less important right of anonymous speech. It tethers them in a way that exposes the weaknesses of the lesser right to the greater one. Free speech is the right to say whatever you want without government interference. The right to anonymity may be important to, but let it stand on its own. > If the government can monitor which events you show up at or what you read, does that make you more likely to be put on a no-fly list? Does that make it more likely for the government to pursue a separate legal action that it otherwise might ignore? Lots of things make you more or less likely to do various things. That is not the same as curtailing your right to do them. Changing organ donation from opt-in to opt-out increases the right at which people choose it. That is not the same thing as forcible organ harvesting.