Personal Black Box?

[Punk-Stasi 2.0]

On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 06:27:51 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:


> It's too bad you cannot figure out what other people can.  Yes, it is certainly correct to point out that a given technology can probably be employed both to help and hurt freedom, but that's only relevant if you only approach the question qualitatively, not quantitatively.  Yes, a camera can be used by a cop to photograph a perp, or by a citizen to photograph a cop.  But is that merely the only relevant issue?  I don't think so.  They don't cancel themselves out, if you factor in the number of incidents that might be photographed. 

	Indeed, in 'quantitative' terms the situation is a disaster as well. The number of  people who have technical knowledge is pretty small and virtually all of them work for the government. The number of hackers who are not govcorp sellouts is tiny. 

	So, 'quantitatively' the machines are mostly controlled by the goverment-private oligarchy. 

 
> Let's consider Milwaukee, and George Floyd.  About 9 minutes of video, probably taken by a smartphone costing a few hundred dollars, indirectly led to hundreds of thousands of people protesting, and even rioting, around the world.  Probably even millions, if you include the foreign events.  

	What are you talking about. You think people outside the US are 'protesting' police brutality in the US?? For starters, vast majority of people IN the US are big supporters of police brutality, and it's obviously a non-issue for people outside the US.


>  Now, I'd be the first to say that's not an entirely unalloyed benefit (if you include the rioting and looting), 

	I have no objection to the rioting and looting. 

>but the public clearly needed to see that incident.  

	Oh yes, because people in the US don't know what sort of fascist cesspool they live in. The same white supremacists who voted for trump don't know that the police routinely murders 
blacks for fun. But wait. That's exactly what trumpo voters voted for.


>And they did so, because of the invention of the smarphone.  

	It's pretty hard to take you seriously...

>(The public saw the Rodney King incident in 1992, but only because somebody who was on a balcony at just the right time happened to have a camcorder, with a charged battery, and findable-in-time casette of videotape.)

	lawl...

	Now, there's something called 'journalism', and journos have been using 'technology' for a while...to serve and proptect the private-government mafia. 

	The sort of propaganda you're trying to peddle here is infinitely ridiculous. You pick ONE event that suits your 'narrative' while IGNORING A MILLION that prove that your 'narrative' is bullshit. 


>   But the public probably needs to see hundreds, or even thousands of similar incidents, but they don't, and that's mostly because it's mostly just random chance that a camera would be pointed in the right direction at the right time.   

	there are cameras pointing everywhere, all the time. They are all controlled by the government and ayn rand's 'libertarian heroes' like bezos, google and the rest of the 'private' nsa mafia. 


>However, the technology mostly already exists to allow people to take a continuous, 360-degree panorama of a protest.  Will it see misconduct by rioters, even looters?  Sure.  But it will also show misconduct by cops, of a kind and extent that most protestors will want to see photographed.  

	yeah, because there never were riots before and because photography never existed (like jesus)


> I suggest that most protestors will welcome this kind of technology.  


	right, same protestors who don't know what photography is 

	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_photography_technology



>                   Jim Bell
> 
>   
> 
> 
>