upvote

points

by twodave1 days ago |
comments
upvoteby palata1 days ago|
next
[-]
Because you think that "being able to track leadership of a country that knows that other countries may want to target them" does not mean "being able to track pretty much anyone"?

Or do you think that those cameras are less secure because the leadership is not good with their people?

I'm not sure I follow the criticism here.

reply
upvoteby twodave22 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I thought I stated my position pretty clearly. This is like saying, “We should ban guns!” And then use a successful self-defense case as a supporting argument. Whether you agree or disagree with the thesis, I think we can all agree that’s a stupid way to make the point. But perhaps you just aren’t willing to have a genuine discussion.
reply
upvoteby palata14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You are the one nitpicking about the argument ("I agree with your point, but I will just complain about your example"), so don't be surprised if you get answers :-).

> This is like saying, “We should ban guns!” And then use a successful self-defense case as a supporting argument.

Not quite, no. It is saying "If even those people who benefit from their national security can be tracked by an actor that does not own the cameras, it means that anyone can be tracked by those cameras. Do we want foreign actors to be able to track anyone in the country, even the leadership?".

It actually makes a stronger point than "normal people who gladly share all their data can be tracked", and even stronger than "a journalist taking care not to be tracked can still be tracked". Here we have the leadership of a country that knows that they are targets, who therefore benefit from national security. And they can still be tracked.

reply
upvoteby twodave11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Ok, this is a good point I hadn’t thought of. Thank you.
reply
upvoteby flockonus1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Anyone who has a mobile phone has been tracked by their phone provider forever, with the accuracy of a couple blocks. Smartphones only bring more trackers to the equation in the form of apps.

What's the material concern to tracking that glasses add?

reply
upvoteby metamet1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Surely the difference between location tracking (that still requires a warrant for the government to get access to, thus Stingrays) and the intimate visual processing and tagging that is derived from the likes of smart glasses is self explanatory, right?

To that point, the difference between geolocation and video tracking and analysis (like Flock) seems pretty obvious to me.

It's invasively panopticon.

reply
upvoteby Onavo1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You can recognize a threat to national security without supporting the ideology behind it. It sounds like you are trying to to spread FUD around stronger privacy regulations. It would be a lot less funny when the shoe is on the other foot and it's not Iranian networks that's being compromised. Are you perhaps a vendor of mass surveillance systems like your username's namesake?
reply
upvoteby bigyabai1 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Why not? China is taking notes, it's merely a matter of time before the shoe is on the other foot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Typhoon
reply
upvoteby twodave22 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Well, I personally don’t think the answer to, “Our enemies might use the same tactics,” is to avoid entering into what I believe is a justified conflict. Besides, if you think China could push over the US without lighting the entire world on fire then I don’t know what to tell you. Nobody wants that, and they’re not stupid or religiously radical enough to pull something like that. Obviously Iran is, since they woke up yesterday at war with 2 counties and ended up at war with 7 by the end of the day. Imagine if they had nukes.
reply
upvoteby twodave22 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Anyway, I can be against domestic surveillance while also being willing to take advantage of my enemies’ surveillance of their own citizens.
reply
upvoteby bigyabai22 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Being "against" domestic surveillance doesn't mean shit. It's a done deal, America is surveilled by it's own government and China is actively exploiting it as an attack vector.

Get it out of your system now, these double-standards won't be funny when Taiwan is blockaded.

reply
upvoteby twodave22 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I’m not sure what your point is, but this doesn’t seem like a genuine attempt to engage anymore, so I guess we’re done talking.
reply
upvoteby Computer01 days ago|
prev|
[-]
I overall agree with your point, but I don’t think defending a country engaged in a genocide is a strong supporting argument…
reply
upvoteby twodave22 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Where did I defend anyone in my comment?

Edit: no, seriously, you having some personal axe to grind is no excuse for directing it at me or my comments. This is a sign of a person having a skewed perspective.

reply