> 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.
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.