>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.
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Meanwhile, the other side is just openly calling for the horrible deaths of people who disagree with them. So, I can choose the 1) openly homicidal fascist, or 2) the maybe fascist (so you say) who is not openly homicidal.
So, I'm gonna go ahead and side with the people who aren't openly homicidal.
You should side with the people that aren't homicidal, not the ones that are polite and closeted about it.
But also, homicidal is doing some heavy lifting here, isn't it? It may be accurate in this case, but someone saying we should go kill all the Nazis in WW2 because they're actively genociding their people would also fall under that umbrella.
> But also, homicidal is doing some heavy lifting here, isn't it?
Yeah, wishing someone's family to be chopped to pieces isn't actually homicidal.
While saying no such thing and not acting in such a way that suggests as much is deeply suspicious because that's just being "polite and closeted about it". And thus the totally not homicidal brutal-murder-liking-people who are absolutely not wishing death and destruction on people not sharing their ideology are the ones to support. because the others are fascists, because they don't say they want the families of others murdered.
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.
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.
If you are arguing that "siding with the others because of rethoric is dangerous", you are right in general. But to a very surprised reader of this thread, you are arguing with someone that responded to
> Anyone deliberately facilitating that certainly deserves the worst fate imaginable.
That came in a thread started with a now (justly) removed
> might wake up to their family chopped to pieces
This sets the tone I (and possibly others) interpret that message.
I know we are supposed to charitably interpret what people write on here, but a thread like this makes it really hard, given the tone.
You're right, I did pick a bad example. It was extreme, and I'm sure many HN users work for corporations like this and felt targeted.
But it's also worth considering exactly what the mass surveillance state we've got is directly leading to - deaths of many people. How many people have been disappeared or killed by ICE because of technology like this? That's just one group actively targeted by surveillance tech, and the government intends to go after millions more, as they've publicly stated. That's not to mention how many millions of people have had their lives worsened or ruined directly or indirectly because of tech like this.
These sorts of things aren't an innocent startup consisting of a few nerds in a garage, they're shaping the world and setting the stage for the expansion of horrible atrocities. This is ultimately what I mean - you have to look at the effects of what they're doing and the actual consequences. Once you see that and know people who are more directly affected/targeted by these technologies, it becomes a lot more clear why people are so angry at them.
And that's fine, I'm willing to accept that the world is full of people who hate freedom.
I have no doubt that the positions you paint as more acceptable than mine are an existential threat.
>Whatever it takes to ensure you and those who agree with you never, ever get any foothold in the discourse, let alone power
Luckily the likes of you lost already. Trumps idiocy pretty much ensured that we'll get a real fight rather than a polite march into the dystopian surveillance nightmare you wish for.
There's no-one seriously trying to turn down the temperature, the fight is going to happen. I'm armed to the teeth (in the EU!) and ready to do my best to ensure that the good guys win.
Look at the supported formats lists. It includes so many parsers, mostly written in C, which means there probably are a few dozen ways to exploit the player.
Can you tell us about any prior or active incidents like that though?
That is, I'm calling you out for fearmongering, for a possible what-if, but given how popular VLC is you'd think it would've happened / is actively happening already. And there is no evidence for that.
What's up with people insisting that you need a lawyer to respond to a DMCA notice? That's some hilariously poor advice, like holy shit. I wonder if these same (presumably) rich idiots also hire a lawyer to read the terms of service when signing up for a service?
You absolutely do not need and should not spend money on a lawyer for this. The only way you're possibly going to get in trouble is if you're acting in bad faith, you don't need a lawyer to tell you if you are.
Stuff being bought went from commodities that could be produced by anyone to state-of-the-art black magic that only a select few might be able to deliver in the future. It's not surprising that the leverage has shifted towards the supply side.
There is an element of truth to this. It's also true that the U.S. government is a terrible customer, especially for bespoke or expensive military goods. However, you can see my other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47652717 for what is likely the greater contributing factor. Different outcomes require acquisition leaders that prioritize doing the right thing for the public, even if that pits them against their internal government "customers".
Calling them thieves is a bit harsh, it's not like they didn't pay for the food, just not able to transport it unless it's in your own internal containers.
Yes sorry, in case it wasn't clear, I wasn't agreeing with the commenter or calling my family thieves :) just because a restaurant kicks you out because you took too much food doesn't mean you're a criminal.
At this point Israelis (and the bulk of Israel-backing jews around the world) only have themselves to blame for the resurgence of neo-nazi conspiracy theories.
>antisemitic conspiracy theory that claims that Jews secretly control the U.S. government.
Anyway, this just seems to be fact, and not a conspiracy theory? Besides for the "secretly" part.
I think at this point it's entirely fair to hate the state of Israel and anyone who supports it existence. Not because of blood libels, but over a century of Zionist aggression.
There's no need for just about anyone to live in Israel, it's a choice. It's okay to hate people for the choices they make.
>A bigot is a person who is obstinately, unreasonably, or unfairly attached to their own beliefs, prejudices, or opinions, particularly regarding race, religion, or politics
It's not in any way unfair to despise people who still support Israel after nearly a century of crimes against humanity.
That'd be a fair criticism if I subscribed to some traditional antisemitic views, but I don't really have any inherent problem with the jewish people. I just want the destruction of the state of Israel and any who would support it, it's purely coincidental that this includes most jewish people.
do you hate Russians? do you hate Syrians/Alawites? Do you hate Turks and Iraqis for what they do to Kurds? Do you hate Japanese for what they did in WWII? Do you hate Americans for Vietnam / Afganistan / Iraq? Do you hate Chinese for Tibet, Xinjiang? Do you hate the British for Bengal Famine? France for Algeria? Pakistan for Bangladesh? Saudis for Yemen? Myanmar for Rohinja? Serbs for Kosovo?
No. You hate on Jews.
All of these conflicts have significantly more deaths than Arab/Israeli conflict. All of them are much more clear cut than Israel that defends itself since 1948 and Jews that defend themselves from hate crimes against civilians since 1920s.
“i just want the destruction of a 9 millon people country (btw including the 2 million arabs? what about druze, samaritans, circasians?)” hate consumes you, you totally are a bigot
Totally, it’s their home. Israeli Arabs also have way higher standard of life than all of other Arab countries – including LGBT rights, passport strength etc. etc.
Destruction of Israel is not about "legal structure", and btw we’ll prevail and people like you are the reason Israel needs to exist. We saw what happens when jews don’t have a national home.
Right, including all the women and the LGBT people. Penalties include severe punishments such as the death penalty, floggings, imprisonment, and fines.
And Israel keeps millions of Palestinians in large concentration camps.
It's hard to imagine what sort of sick mind would consider the Saudi treatment of minorities to be worse. It's abhorrent, but it doesn't come anywhere close to how Israel treats people.
Besides, the whole concept of "Israeli arabs" is a bit hilarious. How are those different from other Palestinian arabs? Is it just that Israeli state considers them more acceptable than other arabs based on some arbitrary standards not grounded on physical reality?
They are different from other palestinian arabs in that they hold israeli citizenship. Not sure how this can be hilarious.
Why don’t you say billions of palestinians in concentration camps? The type of concentration camps with hundred thousand euro luxury cars https://www.facebook.com/LUXURYAUTOMOBILECO/ and corrupt politicians living in mansions. You have no idea what you’re talking about, you never been to Palestine or Israel and you drown in your hateful lies
Something arbitrarily bestowed upon them by recent European invaders that secretly built nuclear weapons to secure their claim to stolen land.
>Why don’t you say billions of palestinians in concentration camps? The type of concentration camps with hundred thousand euro luxury cars https://www.facebook.com/LUXURYAUTOMOBILECO/ and corrupt politicians living in mansions. You have no idea what you’re talking about, you never been to Palestine or Israel and you drown in your hateful lies
I've visited my family in Israel on several occasions in the past. I don't do that anymore though.
Palestinians are prisoners, they have to ask Israel for permission to leave. They are kept in large camps, even if some drive Maybachs.
im sure you are lying and shame on you comparing people driving
maybachs to concentration camps in which millions of jews perished. people from west bank can travel via jordan no problem and so could gazans through egypt. lies and hate as in all the rest of the comments
Everyone should hate Israel. It's a terrorist state built on ethnic cleansing and genocide. It's executed so many crimes against humanity since its inception that it's impossible to track them all."The jews" aren't a nation, there's a nation that claims to represent all jews and it's up to the jews (and only the jews) to push back on that.
I will repeat this question - do you hate Russians? do you hate Syrians/Alawites? Do you hate Turks and Iraqis for what they do to Kurds? Do you hate Japanese for what they did in WWII? Do you hate Americans for Vietnam / Afganistan / Iraq? Do you hate Chinese for Tibet, Xinjiang? Do you hate the British for Bengal Famine? France for Algeria? Pakistan for Bangladesh? Saudis for Yemen? Myanmar for Rohinja? Serbs for Kosovo?
No. You hate on Jews.
All of these conflicts have significantly more deaths than Arab/Israeli conflict. All of them are much more clear cut than Israel that defends itself since 1948 and Jews that defend themselves from hate crimes against civilians since 1920s.
Israel is actively a bad actor, many of the ones you listed are not.
>All of them are much more clear cut than Israel that defends itself since 1948
It's dishonest to suggest that Israel was in any way defending itself in 1948, given that it's very creation was an act of aggression.
Despite a plenty of opportunities, Israel has never taken a step back to reset that. Because of that, Israel remains the aggressor.
Yitzhak Rabin perhaps tried and was rewarded with two bullets for his efforts. The Jewish supremacist who killed him is widely celebrated as a hero in Israel.
Oh, and when Rabin was killed it was the fourth assassination attempt by jewish supremacists that year. Now those same people run the country.
I disengage, no need to argue with psychopaths. I am sure you never held a gun or would shoot anyone, keyboard warrior.
If anyone reads his comments I strongly recommend verifying everything he says as it îs factually incorrect, but is based on russian style firehose of falsehood mixing in couple of sensible statements (like the fact that Rabin was killed by an extremist).
>That is not to say Iran is winning. Remember this is not a sports game, and no one needs to win. It is possible, and likely, for everyone to lose (be in a worse position than prior).
As of right now, Iran looks likely to end the war with permanent control of the strait of Hormutz. They'll tax the gulf countries in perpetuity.
Gulf countries can't reasonably afford to go to war with Iran over this either, and it's even less likely that they could prevail in such a conflict. Gulf countries can't even afford to go to war with Iran now, with the US actively fighting there.
Iran can suffer terrible short-term and medium-term economic consequences while still establishing a whole new kind of dominance over the region.
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.
reply