<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Nasrudith</author><text>It is a very bad thing since it gives power to abuse with selectivity. It is just automated enough to maximize the abuse potential essentially to turn into rule of man. If everyone is doing something &amp;#x27;illegal&amp;#x27; than it gives great power to those who can enforce it. Sure everybody smokes a joint after work. But the guy who cut you off in traffic? Check him to see if there is something you can ruin his life for - ah there it is. Bingo. And that is just petty abuse instead of orchestrated ones.
If things were fully automated such that it was impartial it wouldn&amp;#x27;t have those problems. You could be the mayor of New York City and the traffic cameras automatically fined you for going 27mph in a 25mph and an appeal was a process that was absolutely ironclad with no room for judgment (Was the camera accurate? Did you have extenuating circumstance such as fleeing from immediate violence or rushing someone to emergency medical aid? If yes ticket dismissed. If no ticket stands.) that wouldn&amp;#x27;t be abuseable. It may be contrary to intents and would be a royal pain in the ass and may likely get changed to at least give it a margin of 10 mph over the speed limit but it couldn&amp;#x27;t be abused.</text><parent_chain><item><author>DenisM</author><text>&amp;gt;being able to select targets after-the-fact at little additional cost&lt;p&gt;Is it a bad thing though? Imagine that everything on all streets is recorded, and when an incident happens a cop goes to the judge and asks for a warrant to view the footage for &amp;quot;Pike St, between 1st and 2nd ave, between 13:00 and 13:35, on Jan 3rd 2019&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;Technology changes the balance of power in different directions. The police used to be able to tap phones, but now whatsapp is pretty much out of reach, this hampers one of the venues. To keep up the police would need new methods, and it does not have to be phone intercept, maybe post-factum external surveillance would suffice.</text></item><item><author>0xcde4c3db</author><text>&amp;gt; It doesn’t matter if you’re driving down the street or visiting a friend, if government or law enforcement has a reason to set up surveillance, there’s great technology out there to do it.&lt;p&gt;I think most people understand this concept at some level. This describes the same fundamental pattern as undercover officers and informants: a suspect is identified and assets allocated to the project of going after that person or organization. The scary thing isn&amp;#x27;t so much that surveillance tech &lt;i&gt;exists&lt;/i&gt;, but rather the prospect of law enforcement (or others who can obtain access to their systems by various means) being able to select targets after-the-fact at little additional cost because of indiscriminate surveillance.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The DEA and ICE are hiding surveillance cameras in streetlights</title><url>https://qz.com/1458475/the-dea-and-ice-are-hiding-surveillance-cameras-in-streetlights/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>clubm8</author><text>&amp;gt;Is it a bad thing though? Imagine that everything on all streets is recorded, and when an incident happens a cop goes to the judge and asks for a warrant to view the footage for &amp;quot;Pike St, between 1st and 2nd ave, between 13:00 and 13:35, on Jan 3rd 2019&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;The laws were written assuming that they wouldn&amp;#x27;t be perfectly enforced. We&amp;#x27;d never have consented to many of them if we knew they&amp;#x27;d be 100% enforced.&lt;p&gt;Increasing surveillance is a back-door in democracy that grants the government new powers w&amp;#x2F;o going through the legislature.</text><parent_chain><item><author>DenisM</author><text>&amp;gt;being able to select targets after-the-fact at little additional cost&lt;p&gt;Is it a bad thing though? Imagine that everything on all streets is recorded, and when an incident happens a cop goes to the judge and asks for a warrant to view the footage for &amp;quot;Pike St, between 1st and 2nd ave, between 13:00 and 13:35, on Jan 3rd 2019&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;Technology changes the balance of power in different directions. The police used to be able to tap phones, but now whatsapp is pretty much out of reach, this hampers one of the venues. To keep up the police would need new methods, and it does not have to be phone intercept, maybe post-factum external surveillance would suffice.</text></item><item><author>0xcde4c3db</author><text>&amp;gt; It doesn’t matter if you’re driving down the street or visiting a friend, if government or law enforcement has a reason to set up surveillance, there’s great technology out there to do it.&lt;p&gt;I think most people understand this concept at some level. This describes the same fundamental pattern as undercover officers and informants: a suspect is identified and assets allocated to the project of going after that person or organization. The scary thing isn&amp;#x27;t so much that surveillance tech &lt;i&gt;exists&lt;/i&gt;, but rather the prospect of law enforcement (or others who can obtain access to their systems by various means) being able to select targets after-the-fact at little additional cost because of indiscriminate surveillance.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The DEA and ICE are hiding surveillance cameras in streetlights</title><url>https://qz.com/1458475/the-dea-and-ice-are-hiding-surveillance-cameras-in-streetlights/</url></story>