> Surveillance cameras have everything to do with consolidating power into fewer and fewer hands. Therefore fewer voices of dissent on the levers of power.
> Iran is going through a demographic shift. The protests and strikes are evidence of a desire for change. With tools like this even small acts of defiance become higher risk.
People with guns kill more people than people without guns.
Oppressive governments with cameras oppress more people than oppressive governments without cameras.
I think you and I agree that it's a matter of degree.
But in that case, why is this link interesting? And if it's not interesting, why is it in HN? I consider that "government that's well known to be very oppressive decided to take another step to increase oppression" isn't interesting.
If nothing else it spurs discussion about the ethics of our field. Perhaps it will give some pause before pushing the state of the art forward, or working for shady operators.
The irony of this statement is government is historically responsible for the most deaths as they are best armed. When technology like firearms are decentralized and more people have access to them, fewer overall deaths occur and more individual freedom ensues.
Same concept for cameras, when they are pointed at police and agents of the state by citizens.
Ask the various native peoples, who at various times outgunned the then pitiful US Army, how well that worked out. Read the survivor accounts about how well the Easter Rising did in Ireland. Political movements defeat state power, period.
Ditto with the Boers and the British. The Brits weren’t faring well against mobile artillery and people not marching around with redcoats and brass. The Brits “won” when they put the families in concentration camps and half starved them.
Guns are powerful, but power doesn’t come from the barrel of a gun.
A: Tactical teams with automatic weapons, sometimes snipers or air support now serve warrants and raid moderate risk suspects.
We don’t have a tyrannical government. The US unrest scenario is different than China as the citizenry is neutral or pro-government, but you have a vocal minority. We have reactionary political parties that use armed LARPer militias to intimidate voters and influence policy.
He'll just tell you why this example is different and/or doesn't apply to the conversation and/or your point.
"Can you name JUST ONE example??!"
"Here's one"
"Nooooo that doesn't count!!! Those patriots are good people! They're just there to stop black people from stealing the votes"
The way I see it you're making a stronger claim and thus have a higher burden of proof. And yet, you offered none.
He said "in my country such and such happened". And you're saying "here's an example of such and such happening".
EDIT: But now that we're at it,
> The Wounded Knee Massacre, also known as the Battle of Wounded Knee, was a massacre of nearly three hundred Lakota people by soldiers of the United States Army.
300 people seems like nothing compared to the number of people that dies every year due to (civilian) gun violence. You're just thinking binary, you're not thinking with numbers. Also your best example is from 1890. Roughly the same amount of people that died in school shootings in the first three months of this year. Your commitment to ideology is hilarious.
Germany was also never widely armed prior to Hitler. This is an urban myth.
Only a handful of societies have ever had widespread civilian armament. Certainly not enough to make any kind of causal inference about the general effects of firearms on revolutionary or counter-revolutionary activity.
And Wounded Knee? This was a continuation of a policy of Manifest Destiny and genocide that saw hundreds of massacres and battles. The many armed battles that took place would suggest that being armed wasn't a significant deterrent to US cavalry.
What evidence proves this is true?
It worked well for Afghanistan, also Vietnam.
I would like for us to start thinking about how we want that to play out now, rather than later.
I hope you'll join us for that conversation.
So you're telling me if we banned cameras in Iran, women would no longer be oppressed?
I'm saying without cameras people will have more freedom to resist, in big and small ways. And with enough resistance they may enact meaningful change.
Cameras are tightening the noose on the opposition to those in power.
That does not logically follow; another technology would just as soon take the place of surveillance cameras (phone tracking, social stigma, stricter laws and punishment). It is the intent of the oppressor and the courage of a culture to resist it that matters most.
sad thing is this is only the start, wait till you see what pervalant surveillance powered with AI/GPT-X brings.
We are not, and literally no one is advocating for this. This is entirely on Iran, and maybe the Chinese company selling them cameras if it exists
Oppression would still be present. The issue is the impact and influence protestors could have had simply wouldn't be possible as any dissent will be met with a knock at the door the moment it is uttered.
We have been hearing this argument for too long from those who are anti Iran.
Consequently, it's a waste of time at best, and a fatal distraction at worst, to blame inanimate objects for the actions of their owners.
That aside, if you want to talk statistics, your biggest threat comes from the guns in the hands of your own country's police or military authorities. On a long-enough timeline, anyway.
Surveillance cameras have everything to do with consolidating power into fewer and fewer hands. Therefore fewer voices of dissent on the levers of power.
Iran is going through a demographic shift. The protests and strikes are evidence of a desire for change. With tools like this even small acts of defiance become higher risk.