8 ms·

I feel it's a little disingenuous to describe millions of innocent people being surveilled as "the offenders" because there are a handful of actual offenders am

by furi 5y ago

I feel it's a little disingenuous to describe millions of innocent people being surveilled as "the offenders" because there are a handful of actual offenders among them.

ChrisKnott 5y ago
I didn't do that...? There's a small number of victims, a small number of offenders (but much more than "a handful"), and hundreds of millions of other users. This change is in the direct interest of victims, direct opposition to offenders. Most normal people probably support the measures in solidarity with group 1, HN generally doesn't.
- furi 5y ago
  ...And direct opposition to those hundreds of millions of other users. Trying to fit this to a victims vs. offenders model is a deliberate attempt to turn those hundreds of millions of other users into uninvolved bystanders. They have been pushed out by the lack of space in the model for them and their right to not have their door kicked down based on the results of an algorithm and database they can't audit, which are susceptible to targeted adversarial attacks and authoritarian interference respectively.
  - ChrisKnott 5y ago
    It's in "direct" opposition to them in the same way drink driving laws are in "direct" opposition to people who have no intention of driving drunk. It's a restriction on their liberty and privacy that they willingly support because of the overall positive effects. Anyway I'll duck out of this now the driveby downvotes annoy me.
    - furi 5y ago
      If drunk driving laws were enforced by mandating a breathalyzer in every car and nobody really knew how the breathalyzer worked and also it maybe doubled as an instrument for the government to catch you doing fifteen other things then I might consider that a fair comparison. But yes, there's a lot of drive-by engagement in this thread, thank you for at least engaging with it directly.
      - somebodythere 5y ago
        Funny enough, the recent infrastructure bill in the US includes provisions for all new cars to be fitted with breathalyzer-like devices.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- trainsplanes 5y ago
  Having private devices randomly snooped for forbidden materials is fine, okay. So why limit this to phones? There are kidnapped children being locked inside homes. If you don't open your doors and accept weekly full home inspections, I think it's safe to say you support offenders and hate victims if you oppose this. I mean, we're all against people kidnapping and abusing children. There's a small number of victims, a small number of offenders (but much more than "a handful"), and hundreds of millions of other home owners. This change is in the direct interest of victims, direct opposition to offenders.

by furi 5y ago

I feel it's a little disingenuous to describe millions of innocent people being surveilled as "the offenders" because there are a handful of actual offenders among them.

ChrisKnott 5y ago

I didn't do that...? There's a small number of victims, a small number of offenders (but much more than "a handful"), and hundreds of millions of other users. This change is in the direct interest of victims, direct opposition to offenders. Most normal people probably support the measures in solidarity with group 1, HN generally doesn't.

furi 5y ago
...And direct opposition to those hundreds of millions of other users. Trying to fit this to a victims vs. offenders model is a deliberate attempt to turn those hundreds of millions of other users into uninvolved bystanders. They have been pushed out by the lack of space in the model for them and their right to not have their door kicked down based on the results of an algorithm and database they can't audit, which are susceptible to targeted adversarial attacks and authoritarian interference respectively.
- ChrisKnott 5y ago
  It's in "direct" opposition to them in the same way drink driving laws are in "direct" opposition to people who have no intention of driving drunk. It's a restriction on their liberty and privacy that they willingly support because of the overall positive effects. Anyway I'll duck out of this now the driveby downvotes annoy me.
  - furi 5y ago
    If drunk driving laws were enforced by mandating a breathalyzer in every car and nobody really knew how the breathalyzer worked and also it maybe doubled as an instrument for the government to catch you doing fifteen other things then I might consider that a fair comparison. But yes, there's a lot of drive-by engagement in this thread, thank you for at least engaging with it directly.
    - somebodythere 5y ago
      Funny enough, the recent infrastructure bill in the US includes provisions for all new cars to be fitted with breathalyzer-like devices.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
trainsplanes 5y ago
Having private devices randomly snooped for forbidden materials is fine, okay. So why limit this to phones? There are kidnapped children being locked inside homes. If you don't open your doors and accept weekly full home inspections, I think it's safe to say you support offenders and hate victims if you oppose this. I mean, we're all against people kidnapping and abusing children. There's a small number of victims, a small number of offenders (but much more than "a handful"), and hundreds of millions of other home owners. This change is in the direct interest of victims, direct opposition to offenders.