News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by tedajax on Thursday October 22, 2020 @02:26PM (#24861444)
Yes, the person who brings the baton down on your head is an oppressor. They can literally just quit if they don't want to be oppressors.
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by RobRivera on Thursday October 22, 2020 @02:51PM (#24861840)
Let's take a market dynamics perspective. There are N number of financial contracts which 100xN market participants may choose to accept or bid their time on. The cost of vacating such a contract is substantial, as a career based on these contracts rarely transition to the family supporting careers one may need to replace it with, less an ambitious actor finds a suitable passion to replace it (common among LEOs is the practice of Law). So there exists a high cost to the participants to vacate these contracts and place them back on the market for bid.

The goal of fighting oppression this way is to drive the number of willing participants down and keep as many of those contracts open/unfulfilled. Quiting vacates 1.

However, given the high cost of such a decision, the desired benefit tends to be attained, as there is always sufficient numbers of willing participants to bid on those vacancies. Every year people graduate, separate from the military, migrate here.

Fighting labor market dynamics is unscalable. Changing labor markets via political mechanisms on the other hand is.

Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by zentiggr on Thursday October 22, 2020 @03:05PM (#24862024)
> Changing labor markets via political mechanisms on the other hand is.

Theoretically, sure. You're going to do this in Belarus, the most openly totalitarian state currently? The problem is that politically changing the dynamics is nigh impossible until the existing power structure is neutralized.

I'll agree that losing a living wage is a large difficulty, but reducing totalitarian oppression to market dynamics is callous, or biased. The larger situation demands action beyond rational choices.

Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by zepto on Thursday October 22, 2020 @03:14PM (#24862136)
I’ve generally heard people defend the doxxing as a rational choice.
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by fsflover on Thursday October 22, 2020 @03:16PM (#24862170)
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by zepto on Thursday October 22, 2020 @03:30PM (#24862373)
How is that even relevant to my comment?
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by zepto on Thursday October 22, 2020 @02:37PM (#24861619)
One person’s protestor is another person’s vandal or looter.
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by vladTheInhaler on Thursday October 22, 2020 @02:43PM (#24861724)
This is vapid both-sides-ism of the worst kind. The election in Belarus is internationally recognized as illegitimate. The "winner" has long been known as "Europe's last dictator".

Don't equivocate between the people protesting for their votes to be counted and the people kidnapping and torturing them in response.

Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by zepto on Thursday October 22, 2020 @02:47PM (#24861789)
If it’s so clear to everyone, why aren’t the protests bigger?

It seems like there are millions of people in Belarus who are equivocating in some way.

I’m not questioning whether the dictator should go.

I’m saying that for each person in the situation, whatever their role, the calculus of what action to take is not black and white.

Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by democracy on Thursday October 22, 2020 @05:09PM (#24863333)
because people are scared, isn't it obvious?
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by zepto on Thursday October 22, 2020 @05:34PM (#24863544)
It’s obvious that some people are. It’s not obvious that it’s all that is going on. It’s also not obvious exactly what they are scared of.

For example, by all accounts Lukashenko is backed by Putin. It could be that people are less scared of the police, and more scared of what could happen if they overthrow Lukashenko, and Putin sends in little green men to restore order.

That’s just one example of what people might be considering. I’m guessing there are also a bunch of people who simply don’t have a clear idea of exactly what’s going on.

Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by democracy on Friday October 23, 2020 @04:47PM (#24873955)
Sorry your guesses are BS. People are afraid of police brutality and being oppressed.
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by rusk on Thursday October 22, 2020 @02:41PM (#24861682)
First amendment begs to differ
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by stretchwithme on Thursday October 22, 2020 @03:58PM (#24862674)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

peaceably: inclined or disposed to avoid strife or dissension; not argumentative or hostile:

assemble: gather together in one place for a common purpose.

Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by zepto on Thursday October 22, 2020 @04:05PM (#24862724)
Unclear what you’re saying here. Also, where do you get the definition of ‘peaceably’ from?
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by bigwavedave on Thursday October 22, 2020 @04:27PM (#24862934)
> Where do you get the definition of "peaceably" from?

step 1: go to ddg step 2: type "define peaceably" step 3: hit "enter" step 4: read the first or second definition in the results step 5: ????? step 6: profit

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/peaceably

Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by zepto on Thursday October 22, 2020 @04:37PM (#24863049)
I don’t think dictionary.com was available to the framers of the US constitution, and I’m guessing that the Supreme Court would draw on some other sources too.

It’s interesting because the dictionary.com definition is very constrained.

Avoiding dissention, and not being ‘argumentative’ seem like a stretch for describing most peaceful protests in the US.

Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by DanBC on Thursday November 05, 2020 @04:03AM (#24996695)
If we're talking about the definition at the time, this is what OED says:

> peaceably, adv.

> 2. Without being subject to disturbance or opposition; in peace, quietly; tranquilly, peacefully.

> 1375: Barbour Bruce v. 231 “It anoyis me.., That the clyffurd sa pesabilly Brukis and haldis the senȝory That suld be mine.”

> 1471: Fortescue Wks. (1869) 527 “Kynge Knoght kepte and occupied the same lande.., and died peasibly seased tharof.”

> 1593: Shakes. 2 Hen. VI, iii. iii. 25 “Disturbe him not, let him passe peaceably.”

> 1727: De Foe Syst. Magic i. iii. (1840) 71 “We come to desire your leave, that we may go peaceably, and do the duty of our worship.”

> 1824: Mackintosh Speech 15 June, “They saw the laws obeyed, justice administered,..and the revenue peaceably collected.”

> peaceably, adv.

> 1. With peaceful or friendly disposition, intention, or behaviour; amicably; so as to make for or maintain peace; without making strife, opposition, or disturbance; without quarrel or dispute.

> c1330: R. Brunne Chron. Wace (Rolls) 7300 “Ȝyf swylk be comen, & peysibly þe hauene han nomen, In pes lat þem take þer rest.”

> 1389: in Eng. Gilds (1870) 52 “Honestliche and peysiblyche to gon to þe forseyd chirch.”

> c1449: Pecock Repr. iii. xiii. (Rolls) 363 “Regniden in successioun euermore oon emperour after an other pesibili to gidere.”

> 1535: Coverdale Zach. viii. 16 “Execute iudgment truly and peaceably.”

> 1599: Shakes. Much Ado v. ii. 72 “Thou and I are too wise to wooe peaceablie.”

> 1599: Nashe Lenten Stuffe Wks. (Grosart) V. 228 “Not any where is..a warlike people peaceablier demeanourd.”

> 1709: Addison Tatler No. 96 2 “Good Subjects, that pay their Taxes, and live peaceably in their Habitations.”

> 1855: Macaulay Hist. Eng. xii. III. 190 “With assurances that the city should be peaceably surrendered.”

>peaceably, adv.

> 3. Comb.

> 1692: Wicked Contriv. Steph. Blackhead in Select. fr. Harl. Misc. (1793) 512 “Some other good and peaceably-minded man.”

> 1781: Cowper Conversation 90 “The clash of arguments and jar of words,..Divert the champions prodigal of breath, And put the peaceably-disposed to death.”

Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by stretchwithme on Wednesday November 04, 2020 @06:23PM (#24994109)
If you disagree with today's common understanding of what peaceable means, can you explain what you think it used to mean?

Or are the implications of this definition the issue?

Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by rusk on Friday October 23, 2020 @11:53AM (#24870809)
Clearly advice coming from somebody knowledgeable on constitutional issues here.
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by bigwavedave on Friday October 23, 2020 @05:27PM (#24874386)
He asked where the gp got the definition, I gave him the steps to find that exact definition. I don't have a horse in this race, I was just providing the source for someone who cared enough to ask but not enough to do even a cursory search.
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by zepto on Thursday October 22, 2020 @02:43PM (#24861739)
How so?
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by mjfl on Thursday October 22, 2020 @02:41PM (#24861689)
Is that what police are doing all day? Walking around and hitting people with batons and shooting minorities and drinking blood?
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by vladTheInhaler on Thursday October 22, 2020 @02:48PM (#24861801)
Police in Belarus are literally kidnapping and torturing protestors [1] so yes, that's pretty much exactly right.

[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-17/belarus-torture-prote...

Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by hobs on Thursday October 22, 2020 @02:44PM (#24861742)
Be as hyperbolic as you like, at the end of the day you are the one defending cops we have video evidence of beating people with sticks.
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by throwaway894345 on Thursday October 22, 2020 @02:54PM (#24861877)
The parent's rather obvious point is that some police officers are bad, but police in general aren't behaving this way. If you disagree, then fine, but at least disagree with the parent and not some straw man of your own making.
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by hobs on Thursday October 22, 2020 @03:19PM (#24862221)
To the comment of "Yes, the person who brings the baton down on your head is an oppressor." - bringing up 'well other police are not bad' is just itself a weird strawman.
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by throwaway894345 on Thursday October 22, 2020 @04:24PM (#24862903)
It's not a straw man so much as a clarification, because the original assertion is ambiguous about whether we're talking literally about a single person or if "person bringing the baton down on your head" is a metaphor for police in general (especially given the surrounding context of talking about the police in a general, plural sense, and the fact that no one disputes that no one disputes that individual bad police officers should be held responsible).
[dead]
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by hobs on Thursday October 22, 2020 @02:49PM (#24861806)
There's a third option - effective policing.
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by Falling3 on Thursday October 22, 2020 @02:56PM (#24861901)
I sincerely wish we could have good faith discussions without false dichotomies.
[dead]
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by hobs on Thursday October 22, 2020 @03:19PM (#24862234)
The comment I respond to discusses drinking blood, I think you might find the good faith comment misplaced.
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by RobRivera on Thursday October 22, 2020 @07:12PM (#24864327)
No sale hobs.

He posed a question asking if the cop is spending all day beating people and drinking blood.

I'm convinced you aren't engaging in good faith discussion. Moving on with my life.

Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by sam_lowry_ on Thursday October 22, 2020 @02:47PM (#24861788)
Pretty much yes. Locals used to reply to bemused foreigners with "It's Belarus, baby" when questioned on police brutality and state-sanctioned killings.
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by colinmhayes on Thursday October 22, 2020 @03:46PM (#24862536)
Do you think murderers are killing people all day? No, they only do it sometimes, that doesn't make it ok.
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by anigbrowl on Thursday October 22, 2020 @03:18PM (#24862215)
Straw man arguments are not conducive to discussion and insult the people they are directed towards.
Re:Activists turn facial recognition tools against the police by craftinator on Thursday October 22, 2020 @02:43PM (#24861725)
Other than that last one... Yeah.