6 ms·

>The crime is detrimental to innocent people, and although mass surveillance should not be the answer, it can only be fought through democratic processes. Mass

>The crime is detrimental to innocent people, and although mass surveillance should not be the answer, it can only be fought through democratic processes. Mass surveillance is detrimental to innocent people and to democratic processes. Anyone deliberately facilitating that certainly deserves the worst fate imaginable. These are tools tailor-made to destroy democracies, we should treat people behind them like we treat ISIS.

pixl97 5mo ago
Yep once the system is set up, no matter how good its intentions, the government will get a group of bad people who then use said monitoring system to entrench their power.
junofan 5mo ago
The article references “public panic buttons” and how > There is active participation by the citizenry, where they connect their private security devices to the command centers run by the state You don’t really believe anybody using a “public panic button” or hooking up their own alarm system to law enforcement deserves the worst fate imaginable. That’s a little extreme. What are we even trying to accomplish here? It sounds like individuals in parts of Mexico are trying to protect themselves. There has to be some compromise between ideals and reality. If you reflexively tell people “you can’t help the cops for the sake of democracy,” they’re gonna throw out the democracy part and keep the cops part. Maybe a short stint in jail in the case of misconduct, but the worst fate imaginable? Chopped up in a suitcase?
- ohhman11 5mo ago
  That's not even close to their main product, who cares? You went from "license plate readers, stationary cameras, and panic buttons abound" in the article to "panic buttons", feels a bit dishonest.
next_xibalba 5mo ago
> Anyone deliberately facilitating that certainly deserves the worst fate imaginable. These are tools tailor-made to destroy democracies, we should treat people behind them like we treat ISIS. Just so you know, I and many people like me will automatically align with whoever opposes you due to this rhetoric. Whatever it takes to ensure you and those who agree with you never, ever get any foothold in the discourse, let alone power. You are writing extremist and very dangerous things. It’s vile rhetoric and in a just world would be flagged to oblivion.
- pesus 5mo ago
  And this is an excellent example of how "polite" fascists come to power. After all, the one with the more "civilized" rhetoric must be the one to support, regardless of why people are so strongly opposed to them.
  - next_xibalba 5mo ago
    Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and side with with people who aren't openly calling for horrible deaths of those that disagree with them.
    - pesus 5mo ago
      > Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and side with with people who aren't openly calling for horrible deaths of those that disagree with them. And there it is - this is why fascists coach their language in a veneer of politeness. After all, they didn't say it out loud, so whatever they're doing must certainly be the right thing to support. Why is the other side so eagerly opposed to them? Well, that doesn't matter, because they weren't polite about it. It's important to look at what organizations/corporations/groups are actually doing, not just what they're saying.
      - luckylion 5mo ago
        You're arguing that being an open fascist is better than being someone you suspect to be a fascist, even though they haven't said anything that confirms it. Weird take.
        pesus 5mo ago
        Not at all. Please try reading more carefully and avoid being reductive. I'm arguing that you're confusing the tone of rhetoric with the meaning of it and drawing the wrong conclusion from that. Just because one side is more polite and shrouded by the structure of a corporation doesn't mean you should reflexively support them because of that.

pixl97 5mo ago

Yep once the system is set up, no matter how good its intentions, the government will get a group of bad people who then use said monitoring system to entrench their power.

junofan 5mo ago

The article references “public panic buttons” and how > There is active participation by the citizenry, where they connect their private security devices to the command centers run by the state You don’t really believe anybody using a “public panic button” or hooking up their own alarm system to law enforcement deserves the worst fate imaginable. That’s a little extreme. What are we even trying to accomplish here? It sounds like individuals in parts of Mexico are trying to protect themselves. There has to be some compromise between ideals and reality. If you reflexively tell people “you can’t help the cops for the sake of democracy,” they’re gonna throw out the democracy part and keep the cops part. Maybe a short stint in jail in the case of misconduct, but the worst fate imaginable? Chopped up in a suitcase?

ohhman11 5mo ago
That's not even close to their main product, who cares? You went from "license plate readers, stationary cameras, and panic buttons abound" in the article to "panic buttons", feels a bit dishonest.

next_xibalba 5mo ago

> Anyone deliberately facilitating that certainly deserves the worst fate imaginable. These are tools tailor-made to destroy democracies, we should treat people behind them like we treat ISIS. Just so you know, I and many people like me will automatically align with whoever opposes you due to this rhetoric. Whatever it takes to ensure you and those who agree with you never, ever get any foothold in the discourse, let alone power. You are writing extremist and very dangerous things. It’s vile rhetoric and in a just world would be flagged to oblivion.

pesus 5mo ago
And this is an excellent example of how "polite" fascists come to power. After all, the one with the more "civilized" rhetoric must be the one to support, regardless of why people are so strongly opposed to them.
- next_xibalba 5mo ago
  Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and side with with people who aren't openly calling for horrible deaths of those that disagree with them.
  - pesus 5mo ago
    > Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and side with with people who aren't openly calling for horrible deaths of those that disagree with them. And there it is - this is why fascists coach their language in a veneer of politeness. After all, they didn't say it out loud, so whatever they're doing must certainly be the right thing to support. Why is the other side so eagerly opposed to them? Well, that doesn't matter, because they weren't polite about it. It's important to look at what organizations/corporations/groups are actually doing, not just what they're saying.
    - luckylion 5mo ago
      You're arguing that being an open fascist is better than being someone you suspect to be a fascist, even though they haven't said anything that confirms it. Weird take.
      - pesus 5mo ago
        Not at all. Please try reading more carefully and avoid being reductive. I'm arguing that you're confusing the tone of rhetoric with the meaning of it and drawing the wrong conclusion from that. Just because one side is more polite and shrouded by the structure of a corporation doesn't mean you should reflexively support them because of that.