[ohhman11]

>The crime is detrimental to innocent people, and although mass surveillance should not be the answer, it can only be fought through democratic processes.

Mass surveillance is detrimental to innocent people and to democratic processes.

Anyone deliberately facilitating that certainly deserves the worst fate imaginable. These are tools tailor-made to destroy democracies, we should treat people behind them like we treat ISIS.

[peyton]

The article references “public panic buttons” and how

> There is active participation by the citizenry, where they connect their private security devices to the command centers run by the state

You don’t really believe anybody using a “public panic button” or hooking up their own alarm system to law enforcement deserves the worst fate imaginable. That’s a little extreme.

What are we even trying to accomplish here? It sounds like individuals in parts of Mexico are trying to protect themselves.

There has to be some compromise between ideals and reality. If you reflexively tell people “you can’t help the cops for the sake of democracy,” they’re gonna throw out the democracy part and keep the cops part.

Maybe a short stint in jail in the case of misconduct, but the worst fate imaginable? Chopped up in a suitcase?

[ohhman11]

That's not even close to their main product, who cares?

You went from "license plate readers, stationary cameras, and panic buttons abound" in the article to "panic buttons", feels a bit dishonest.

[pixl97]

Yep once the system is set up, no matter how good its intentions, the government will get a group of bad people who then use said monitoring system to entrench their power.

[next_xibalba]

> Anyone deliberately facilitating that certainly deserves the worst fate imaginable. These are tools tailor-made to destroy democracies, we should treat people behind them like we treat ISIS.

Just so you know, I and many people like me will automatically align with whoever opposes you due to this rhetoric. Whatever it takes to ensure you and those who agree with you never, ever get any foothold in the discourse, let alone power. You are writing extremist and very dangerous things. It’s vile rhetoric and in a just world would be flagged to oblivion.

[pesus]

And this is an excellent example of how "polite" fascists come to power. After all, the one with the more "civilized" rhetoric must be the one to support, regardless of why people are so strongly opposed to them.

[next_xibalba]

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and side with with people who aren't openly calling for horrible deaths of those that disagree with them.

[pesus]

> Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and side with with people who aren't openly calling for horrible deaths of those that disagree with them.

And there it is - this is why fascists coach their language in a veneer of politeness. After all, they didn't say it out loud, so whatever they're doing must certainly be the right thing to support. Why is the other side so eagerly opposed to them? Well, that doesn't matter, because they weren't polite about it.

It's important to look at what organizations/corporations/groups are actually doing, not just what they're saying.

[next_xibalba]

Meanwhile, the other side is just openly calling for the horrible deaths of people who disagree with them. So, I can choose the 1) openly homicidal fascist, or 2) the maybe fascist (so you say) who is not openly homicidal.

So, I'm gonna go ahead and side with the people who aren't openly homicidal.

[pesus]

You should side with the people that aren't homicidal, not the ones that are polite and closeted about it.

But also, homicidal is doing some heavy lifting here, isn't it? It may be accurate in this case, but someone saying we should go kill all the Nazis in WW2 because they're actively genociding their people would also fall under that umbrella.

[luckylion]

You're arguing that being an open fascist is better than being someone you suspect to be a fascist, even though they haven't said anything that confirms it.

Weird take.

[pesus]

Not at all. Please try reading more carefully and avoid being reductive. I'm arguing that you're confusing the tone of rhetoric with the meaning of it and drawing the wrong conclusion from that. Just because one side is more polite and shrouded by the structure of a corporation doesn't mean you should reflexively support them because of that.

[ohhman11]

And that's fine, I'm willing to accept that the world is full of people who hate freedom.

I have no doubt that the positions you paint as more acceptable than mine are an existential threat.

>Whatever it takes to ensure you and those who agree with you never, ever get any foothold in the discourse, let alone power

Luckily the likes of you lost already. Trumps idiocy pretty much ensured that we'll get a real fight rather than a polite march into the dystopian surveillance nightmare you wish for.

There's no-one seriously trying to turn down the temperature, the fight is going to happen. I'm armed to the teeth (in the EU!) and ready to do my best to ensure that the good guys win.