You are awfully quick to dismiss what you do not know and are too lazy to even do a quick search. I literally read about these parallel construction scenarios here on HN and they are sufficiently common and severe to generate multiple legal actions and be repeatedly reported in mainstream press, e.g., [0],[1],[2],[3], and Flock even stopped cooperating due to these issues[4]. so, there's five citations, doing your homework for you.
>>we're not talking about "absolute power"; bullshit and hyperbole.
A corporate-government alliance that can track every movement of you and every other resident and arrest you on any pretext (e.g., "these two photos show you averaging 5mph over the speed limit, oh, you refuse a car search? GET OUT OF THE CAR...") is functionally indistinguishable from absolute power.
There is a reason such a panopticon is a core feature of many dystopian novels or movies - if they always know what you do, you have zero freedom to do anything they do not want you to do.
With that kind of power, there are endless examples of opportunities for abuse, and the burden of proof is on those trying to defend implementing such a system.
Repeatedly yelling "strawman!" or "citation needed" as if they were a magical argument winning incantations dismissing statements based on "tone" are not arguments. You really read like a high-school poster who got a hold of one of his older sister's college philosophy books over the holidays and now fancies himself a master logician. Of course it feels powerful to take an absolutist stand, and you can argue it forever, but such sophistry doesn't convince anyone and is extremely boring and pointless.
You had one good point upstream that one needs to draw a line somewhere between a single CATV camera and a panopticon. Yes, it is difficult to draw that line. Discussing THAT makes sense.
CBP is already creating surveillance networks to identify "suspicious" routes, and in real-time identify people coincidentally driving that direction, and having local police cook up a reason to stop them.
> You are awfully quick to dismiss what you do not know and are too lazy to even do a quick search.
No, I know that if I search for something, I will find examples of it, devoid of any sense of scale. In order to understand whether or not something is "rare", one must be able to define its relative frequency, not just provide absolute numbers (in most cases).
This Border Patrol program you reference is indeed concerning! But this is not what this topic thread was about (Flock cameras, if you recall), so you are moving the goalposts, if subtly.
> I literally read about these parallel construction scenarios here on HN and they are sufficiently common and severe to generate multiple legal actions and be repeatedly reported in mainstream press, e.g., [0],[1],[2],[3]
None of your sources support the "parallel construction" claim, though? I understand that you're making multiple claims in this statement, but these "multiple sources" you provide only support one of them, and are multiple references to the same thing. So please understand why this isn't exactly convincing?
> A corporate-government alliance that can track every movement of you and every other resident and arrest you on any pretext (e.g., "these two photos show you averaging 5mph over the speed limit, oh, you refuse a car search? GET OUT OF THE CAR...") is functionally indistinguishable from absolute power.
a) this is not what's happening, even in the examples you cite, b) this is just hyperbolic imaginary scenarios, and c), this still is not "absolute power"? Run for office and make it a priority to put some limits on Border Patrol's programs, or support those who do? It's not easy to put limits on these programs once they get started, but it can be (and often is!) done on a regular basis.
The fact that they're running these programs within their legal limitations tells me that this is literally the opposite of "absolute power". It's limited by definition! Are the limitations too loose? Probably! But there are limits, and they still must respect them.
> Repeatedly yelling "strawman!" or "citation needed" as if they were a magical argument winning incantations dismissing statements based on "tone" are not arguments.
And neither does citing hypotheticals as facts, which you keep repeatedly doing? And you have been literally strawmanning my argument this entire time! And literally presenting claims without evidence!
I'm saying those things not because I think they "win" me the argument; I'm saying them because they're the reasons you're not being convincing in the slightest.
> You had one good point upstream that one needs to draw a line somewhere between a single CATV camera and a panopticon. Yes, it is difficult to draw that line. Discussing THAT makes sense.
That's literally what I've been trying to do this whole time. Meanwhile, you keep trying to conflate what we have now with "panopticons" or "absolute power" or other hyperbolic nonsense.
You are awfully quick to dismiss what you do not know and are too lazy to even do a quick search. I literally read about these parallel construction scenarios here on HN and they are sufficiently common and severe to generate multiple legal actions and be repeatedly reported in mainstream press, e.g., [0],[1],[2],[3], and Flock even stopped cooperating due to these issues[4]. so, there's five citations, doing your homework for you.
>>we're not talking about "absolute power"; bullshit and hyperbole.
A corporate-government alliance that can track every movement of you and every other resident and arrest you on any pretext (e.g., "these two photos show you averaging 5mph over the speed limit, oh, you refuse a car search? GET OUT OF THE CAR...") is functionally indistinguishable from absolute power.
There is a reason such a panopticon is a core feature of many dystopian novels or movies - if they always know what you do, you have zero freedom to do anything they do not want you to do.
With that kind of power, there are endless examples of opportunities for abuse, and the burden of proof is on those trying to defend implementing such a system.
Repeatedly yelling "strawman!" or "citation needed" as if they were a magical argument winning incantations dismissing statements based on "tone" are not arguments. You really read like a high-school poster who got a hold of one of his older sister's college philosophy books over the holidays and now fancies himself a master logician. Of course it feels powerful to take an absolutist stand, and you can argue it forever, but such sophistry doesn't convince anyone and is extremely boring and pointless.
You had one good point upstream that one needs to draw a line somewhere between a single CATV camera and a panopticon. Yes, it is difficult to draw that line. Discussing THAT makes sense.
CBP is already creating surveillance networks to identify "suspicious" routes, and in real-time identify people coincidentally driving that direction, and having local police cook up a reason to stop them.
[0] https://apnews.com/article/border-patrol-surveillance-licens...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-patrol-surveil...
[2] https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-...
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45030853
[4] https://apnews.com/article/immigration-abortion-license-plat...