| ▲ | yosamino 4 hours ago |
| > Look, I’m not trying to be pro-surveillance state or whatever, but ... but why do you then go on making all pro-surveillance state arguments ? |
|
| ▲ | Grombobulous 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Is MIT a state? |
| |
| ▲ | malicka 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | When the data ends up inevitably in the state’s hands (almost certainly thanks to the AI company they’re contracting), it is 100% part of the surveillance state. Same reason telecom providers and Big Tech generally is part of the surveillance state; they’ll just hand over data, no questions asked, no warrants provided. | | |
| ▲ | Grombobulous 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Let’s say I run some video cameras on my property, and I decide that I’m going to mail the contents of those hard drives to my police department every day. That’s not the surveillance state. That’s just me as a private entity snitching. MIT is not a public university. It’s private property not much different than my house. You’re generally not supposed to be in most of their buildings unless you’re a student, faculty, or staff, just like you’re not supposed to be at my house unless I invite you over. I will concede, though, that some lines are blurred. E.g., MIT has a police force. The other point of my original comment is really just that it seems like the most prestigious colleges have faculty and students that complain about stuff that’s really typical at less prestigious universities. | | |
| ▲ | itishappy 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > That’s not the surveillance state. Why not? > That’s just me as a private entity snitching. ... to the state. You are surveilling for the state. Domestic surveillance took off with McCarthyism. |
|
| |
| ▲ | kelnos 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | MIT has a police force, so in the way that matters for this particular topic, yes, they are a state. Aside from that, the lines are very blurred these days, as the state often ends up gaining regular, easy access to systems such as this. (Regardless, it's a bit in bad faith to bring up surveillance-state scenarios, and then, when called on it, claim that it doesn't matter because it technically doesn't apply to the organization at hand. Even though it does in the ways that matter.) | | |
| ▲ | Grombobulous 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | That’s not bad faith, it’s just basic logic. MIT isn’t a state and is just installing security cameras on its private property. I do concede what you’re saying about its police force, and that’s a fair angle. | | |
| ▲ | rc5150 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sorry to interrupt the pedantry about whether a specific entity counts as a state, I'd like to submit the notion that maybe the argument shouldn't be "is a state entity" but rather "is an entity that has some form of authority over my livelihood that is cornering me into a mode of constant surveillance which I do not consent to." The obvious answer is to leave the organization, but ultimately one shouldn't have to end their employment in order to be free of undue/unjust AI surveillance. | | |
| ▲ | kelnos 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, this. That's part of my assertion that this is an argument in bad-faith: focusing on irrelevant details in order to derail an argument. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | itishappy 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes. They have borders, government, and a police force. |
|
|
| ▲ | ajkjk 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Man I wish HN commenters could be bothered to even attempt to read each other charitably instead of this crap |
| |
| ▲ | yosamino 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I did and then I asked a serious question. These are arguments that are put forward in favor of mass-surveillance. That is in direct contradiction to the claim "I’m not trying to be pro-surveillance state or whatever". So I was wondering how that contradiction comes about and asked about it. What would you suggest the charitable reading should be ? | | |
| ▲ | ajkjk 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | You believe them. You believe the line "I'm not trying to be pro surveillance state", and then you take seriously the points they made which are completely reasonable things to ask, and you engage critically with them, and discuss how those points are compatible or incompatible with the overall stance. It is easy. As a general rule: to engage charitably with someone you believe the things they say they believe, at face value and attempt to understand how they could come to believe those things. | | |
| ▲ | yosamino 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | But I do believe them. It's just that they points that they sincerely ( I did not doubt that) made are part of the same set of points that are made in favor of a surveillance state - there is a contradiction here. Instead of assuming, I asked a question. Quite literally this: > attempt to understand how they could come to believe those things. Is it possible that you are not reading my comment charitably ? | | |
| ▲ | ajkjk 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You asked them "why do you go on making these pro surveillance state arguments?" How is that supposed to be a serious question? They brought up real concerns. The "why" is obviously that they had real questions--that's the purpose of all questions. So they asked them,and then you implied that, if a person was truly not pro-surveillance, they would not ask such questions. Yet they had those questions. So you think they should have pretended to not be confused? Not asked those questions? Pretended like everything made sense? What was the goal here? You didn't engage with the content of their questions at all. You just called out the act of questioning. You implied that by asking at all they were on the wrong 'side'. | | |
| ▲ | yosamino 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Look, I was trying to understand why the op believed the points that they made were not "pro surveillance-state", that doesn't align with what you are interested in reading here, but that's not really my job. > You implied I think you are implying that I implied. Best to end this here, probably. | | |
| ▲ | ajkjk 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Everyone who writes 'not trying to sound pro X, but... ' is about to follow that with things that sounds pro X. That's what that rhetorical device means. So they obviously knew that the points sounded pro-surveillance. That's why they wrote that disclaimer. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | elliotec 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A charitable read of this article isn't even necessary to understand the point of this is the opposite of the poster you replied to. Basic discernment at most. | |
| ▲ | kelnos 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not sure there's a more charitable read on "I don't want to be pro-surveillance, but [bunch of reasons why I think this is fine and that surveillance should be and has been normalized]". | | |
| ▲ | ajkjk 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes there is. That's the point of the comment. They made their points seriously and people should engage with them seriously. Instead of this reductive tribalism: "oo you expressed doubt about whether this is really bad, you must be One Of Them". Well they actually doubt it. Now what? Does trying to shame them out of doubting it change their mind? Of course not. Either someone engages with their questions and convinces them to agree or they stay on the fence. Trying to shame people out of discussion by pointing out how they're acting like the Wrong People is anti-intellectual and disrespectful and ignorant. Not to mention completely ineffective. | | |
| ▲ | kelnos 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Fair point; you're absolutely right. However, I did follow up with a direct reply before making the comment you're replying to, so... I literally did "engage with their questions". | | |
| ▲ | ajkjk 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | (to be clear, this thread is not in reply to your comment. There is some overlap though) |
|
| |
| ▲ | elliotec 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | whoosh |
|
|
|
| ▲ | elliotec 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| They don't, did you read it? It's clearly a satirical art project exposing the bullshit. |
