5 ms·

As Ben Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." You are giving u

As Ben Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." You are giving up your right to privacy for some modicum of security that they train AI on and gets added to a national database.

polski-g 4mo ago
Yes, I want bad drivers added to a national AI-powered database. There are 44,000 car-related deaths per year. Those people should be: in prison for vehicular manslaughter, paying much higher insurance premiums, and/or be banned entirely from driving.
baggy_trough 4mo ago
The liberty is not essential and the safety is not little or temporary.
- chankstein38 4mo ago
  lol wow yours must have weapons mounted to them or some sort of portal they take the bad folks in or something. It's crazy "liberty is not essential" but then to someone suggest that the safety is permanent because people :O would be ON CAMERA doing something! Pretty wild to see someone so empty headed on HN.
  - baggy_trough 4mo ago
    Are you aware that police use these cameras to track and arrest criminals?
    - chankstein38 4mo ago
      Do you think those criminals go to jail permanently? And that crime is completely eliminated by the reality of being watched?
      - baggy_trough 4mo ago
        Of course not, but it helps, and we need all the help we can get.
  - IAmBroom 4mo ago
    Your ad hominem insult is not helpful.
pandaman 4mo ago
"The right to privacy" while being in public is entirely the hallucination of LLMs who drive redditors. "Public" is an antonym to "private" in any thesaurus. "Privacy in public" is an oxymoron.
- titaniumtown 4mo ago
  The fact that there are cameras is fine. But the issue is who owns the data, what is done with it, and what the end goal is. And with Flock cameras, DHS gets backend access and shares that infomation with ICE, for example: https://komonews.com/news/local/redmond-pd-completely-suspends-flock-camera-use-amid-statewide-concerns-over-ice-access-immigration-enforcement-detention-center-arrest-surveillance-privacy-trump-washington-seattle-protest-border-community https://komonews.com/news/local/redmond-pd-completely-suspen... I am in favor of traditional traffic cameras, I just don't think analytics and facial recognition systems should be hooked up to them. They should be used for archival purposes, scrubbing back to a date of a crime to get the full picture.
  - pandaman 4mo ago
    It is not an issue for me, but it's beside the point of the "right to privacy in public". If you want to argue that the law enforcement should not be able to collect public data you need something other than this imaginary right.

polski-g 4mo ago

Yes, I want bad drivers added to a national AI-powered database. There are 44,000 car-related deaths per year. Those people should be: in prison for vehicular manslaughter, paying much higher insurance premiums, and/or be banned entirely from driving.

baggy_trough 4mo ago

The liberty is not essential and the safety is not little or temporary.

chankstein38 4mo ago
lol wow yours must have weapons mounted to them or some sort of portal they take the bad folks in or something. It's crazy "liberty is not essential" but then to someone suggest that the safety is permanent because people :O would be ON CAMERA doing something! Pretty wild to see someone so empty headed on HN.
- baggy_trough 4mo ago
  Are you aware that police use these cameras to track and arrest criminals?
  - chankstein38 4mo ago
    Do you think those criminals go to jail permanently? And that crime is completely eliminated by the reality of being watched?
    - baggy_trough 4mo ago
      Of course not, but it helps, and we need all the help we can get.
- IAmBroom 4mo ago
  Your ad hominem insult is not helpful.

pandaman 4mo ago

"The right to privacy" while being in public is entirely the hallucination of LLMs who drive redditors. "Public" is an antonym to "private" in any thesaurus. "Privacy in public" is an oxymoron.

titaniumtown 4mo ago
The fact that there are cameras is fine. But the issue is who owns the data, what is done with it, and what the end goal is. And with Flock cameras, DHS gets backend access and shares that infomation with ICE, for example: https://komonews.com/news/local/redmond-pd-completely-suspends-flock-camera-use-amid-statewide-concerns-over-ice-access-immigration-enforcement-detention-center-arrest-surveillance-privacy-trump-washington-seattle-protest-border-community https://komonews.com/news/local/redmond-pd-completely-suspen... I am in favor of traditional traffic cameras, I just don't think analytics and facial recognition systems should be hooked up to them. They should be used for archival purposes, scrubbing back to a date of a crime to get the full picture.
- pandaman 4mo ago
  It is not an issue for me, but it's beside the point of the "right to privacy in public". If you want to argue that the law enforcement should not be able to collect public data you need something other than this imaginary right.