←back to thread

291 points dataflow | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.212s | source
Show context
neilv ◴[] No.44605514[source]
This seems to be a mixed bag for privacy.

You have the judge coming down on the side of privacy, which is good; but the circumstances of the particular case are troubling (allegations of someone throwing a rock at someone else).

I'd be happier gaining ground for privacy rights with cases about, e.g., blanket surveillance, using surveillance for political purposes, surveillance capitalism, etc. Then we figure out where the best lines are for when surveillance actually should or can be used.

(Edit: And ill-considered downvotes is why I'm not going to bother to try to have a meaningful discussion on HN.)

replies(5): >>44605795 #>>44605820 #>>44605983 #>>44606089 #>>44606469 #
1. necovek ◴[] No.44605820[source]
The problem with that approach is that it will validate police illegal surveillance, and they'll only do more and more of it.