dealuromanet

What do you mean they do nothing? They have a redundant microphone array that can track sound with high precision and a camera that can be used to automatically issue fines. Just point the hardware at the people walking about or congregating and see who is saying things The Cabinet doesn't like to hear. Or maybe even who isn't saying enough of what the Cabinet wants to hear. Why get rid of a perfectly functioning and deployed surveillance apparatus?

Gleeful at no more easy transport in or out, eh? Will the regime, I mean The Party, oops I mean The Cabinet, also be removing the noise cameras installed along the roads when they remove the roads? Or are those going to be kept there to protect the people from ideological deviants?

> Why do I get the feeling that you hope for this outcome, from this comment?

I do not hope for it. But if it happens, may it serve as a warning and example to everyone else who has freedom and does not currently cherish it enough. I know that what happened to the truckers in Canada when they had their electronic assets frozen certainly woke up people in Canada to a degree.

Friend, I recommend carrying cash and using exclusively cash from now on and raising a stink about this legislation while there is still freedom to push back on it.

What do you think about using Brave on Apple with its built-in ad-blocking?

It's not about what I do. Your response is similar to people who respond to privacy advoates with "what do you have to hide" or who brush aside their concerns with "I have nothing to hide."

One thing to consider is the trend of expected speech or compulsory speech. There are people who would want to see if other people are saying what they want them to say, rather than just not saying what they don't want them to say. There are people who weigh someone's words to see how dedicated they are to a cause or to an idea or to a movement.

These technologies empower language police even in cases where someone would otherwise choose to say nothing. And they establish a precedent.

Do you prefer the Cabinet? Anyway if all you have are qualms about the allusions, then that’s just the same as saying you don’t like what I said because it makes you uncomfortable. It doesn’t invalidate what I said. Notice how you ignored a legitimate question to gripe over allusions and words.

The worst part is how many people in the other comments are begging for this to be brought to their city too. They've been trained well.

Nah, what's low is to pretend that the solution to any of those is surveillance deployed at scale. Police officers in cruisers with radar and noise guns coordinating amongst one another to pull over and fine some drivers with very loud cars accomplish the same result without empowering abusive centralized authorities with boxes that hear everything 24/7.

> That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.

Nobody said we shouldn't have laws.

There was no comparison between road noise and wrongspeak. That was a warning. The Cabinet wants boxes that hear things with precision 24/7 and can issue fines. Of course they'll justify it however they can.

It's a warning because the power will be abused. You have 1984 in your username - I recommend re-reading that book if it's been a while since you read it.

I don't trust the Party to care about protecting speech. Or to steward this technology properly. Or to be honest about what they're doing with the hardware. What the Party says publicly and what it does internally are two different things.

What are you going to do if they abuse the power? Protest and try to raise awareness? They'll just bankrupt the entire group of protestors for being too loud.

You'd need police officers in police cruisers waiting for the sign of trouble. The officers would communicate with one another when they notice a loud vehicle pass by. Then they can use a noise gun to get a decibel reading. This is an intentional physical bottleneck placed on the surveillance apparatus so that it is limited to only identifying and pursuing those cars that are too loud. You would have the same end result if the fines are hefty enough without needing to build and deploy a surveillance dragnet that you won't be able to escape from once it exists.

A town or city would do better with a few police officers in cruisers keeping an eye on things than with these boxes deployed on every streetlight listening 24/7.

I do not support this technology being used anywhere. It is not surprising to me that cities in California would be the ones interested in this. I do not trust most of these cities to be responsible stewards in general, least of all when it comes to surveillance equipment. California's politicians have lost track of reality and priorities.

Key words: when a police officer tells you

Those things are not free speech and your examples are disingenuous. If you need to reach for disingenuous examples in defense of the Cabinet's chosen machinery, you don't have an argument worth standing on.