But isn't this exactly what various social media companies are doing now? Choosing "to verify identities" because they have "deemed it worthwhile to do so?"

And don't tell me "the difference is scale", unless you're prepared to explain exactly what difference that makes.

But this isn't (intellectually) honest, either?

Maybe you can justify asking that they post under their real name, but asking for the kind of information that's required to steal their identity isn't the same as asking them who they are.

See, this is where I disagree. You can argue that many of these things are "actually happening", but doing so often requires stretching the definitions of these things, or conflating speech with action.

Take your example: I see all sorts of instances where folks on the right have accused others of treason, but there's a significant lack of actual charges. You're conflating rhetoric with action. Rhetoric is dangerous, yes, but the rhetoric we see from the right is just the next escalation in a constant game of escalating rhetoric from both sides.

I mean, calling Republicans "fascists" and "nazis" isn't exactly nonviolent rhetoric, either, especially the latter. There are actual fascists and Nazis among Republicans, for sure, but they don't represent anything close to a majority. There are fascists among Democrats, too!

The rest of your comment is just another great example of inflammatory rhetoric that isn't really representative of a reality that exists outside your own head, unfortunately.

I think this framework really just describes "tribalism", and not specifically "fascism".

And the President of this country has frequently rewritten laws based on their own personal whims, for a very long time now. Trump's actions in this vein might be the most blatant in this regard, but Executive power has been allowed to grow relatively unchecked for a number of decades already, largely because Congress has been unwilling or unable to do anything about it.

Which is why I think opposing this particular abuse of Executive power (if it really is such a thing) is a really weird hill to die on.

I think it's the affirmative action, the choice, that makes the difference

It's either terrible reading comprehension, an inability to understand nuance, or just plain trolling. None of these lead to productive conversations.

This is literally the definition of selfish? You see what you must give up for the sake of someone else (children), see the lack of support you will receive, and decide that you don't want to make that exchange.

That's literally a selfish decision, because you are deciding you want to keep that energy and those resources for yourself.

It's not inherently bad to make that decision, but it absolutely is selfish.

It's worth pointing out that "criminals" are generally "people at the margins"... If for no other reason than to point out that pithy comments like this are often so vague as to be worthless, or even counter-productive!

It's also a good thing that antisocial behavior is often isolated to "the margins", so your statement can even be considered a good thing, by the same metric!

TL;DR: Twitterisms like this are stupid.

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.

Cities aren't pulling out of Flock contacts because Flock isn't effective at clearing crimes. They're pulling out because Flock has garbage security, lies about who has/had access to the data, and generally argues in bad faith about all of it.

These are separate concerns.

I think ALPRs with proper access controls, short retention periods, and strict auditing/oversight are a net good. Flock... Not so much.

Do you have an answer? I certainly don't

You and I have very different definitions of "rarely", apparently.

It is rare, by most definitions of "rare" (at least in the US, where I'm implicitly limiting this discussion, in general). What's yours?

If your definition of "rarely" is "more than never", a) you're setting an unreasonable standard, and b) letting the lack of perfection be an easy way to discredit anyone who disagrees with you, which is intellectually lazy.

I certainly agree that abuse happens! Unfortunately, that's just a fact of life. The best we can do is minimize abuse, and we should be making every effort to do so.

But this does not mean reactionary banning of every new technology, regardless of the benefits it may bring. That's just reactionary conservatism, which I think (based on the rest your comment), you vehemently disagree with!

> Flock is used specifically to create parallel construction, where they observe cars moving "in a pattern" that might indicate "smuggling immigrants" such as driving from a border county, or working with pro-immigrant groups (a 100% legal activity), and local/regional police are alerted to find a pretext to stop the car, and often results in charges for someone who would otherwise never have been noticed.

[Citation needed]. This is certainly plausible, but is currently presented without evidence, and can likewise be dismissed without evidence.

> Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Cool truism. Except we're not talking about "absolute power" by any stretch of the definition.

> This type of systems are only a step away from absolute power

Okay this is just bullshit and hyperbole.

The rest of your comment is equally disingenuous and wildly emotional. I refuse to engage with this. Either calm down and have a real conversation, or go away. Your subsequent ad-hominems and strawmen are entirely unwarranted and uncalled-for.

Banning ALPRs outright is a strictly inferior solution, when compared to putting strict limits on their data retention.

This also inherently limits their potential for misuse, which seems to be your primary concern here?

How does this apply to the topic at hand, though? I think you're straying too far into hypotheticals, perhaps?