Thread

1. Grombobulous · 1790375209 · focus · HN ↗

   I keep wondering if there’s some kind of positive correlation between prestige of an institution and level of immaturity and fragility of their employees.

   Look, I’m not trying to be pro-surveillance state or whatever, but in what universe is a handful of cameras (less than 10 per building) in a publicly accessible space on a private university unusual or alarming?

   I thought every university had this, but I guess I’m now learning that my university wasn’t prestigious enough to be exempted from reality.

   My high school also had cameras. Isn’t that rather typical?

   Keep in mind that pretty much 100% of schools this size have assaults take place every single year on school grounds, in a country where school shootings happen on a literal weekly basis.

   Speaking of the supposed cost waste of these cameras: I would be surprised the university can get reasonably priced insurance without them.

   Edit: this comment has picked up a lot of attention. I encourage those who are disagreeing with me to go directly to the university’s FAQ on the subject that is linked in the article. They directly state that this surveillance system isn’t new, it merely has some new cameras added to the existing system, audio isn’t recorded, facial recognition isn’t used, AI isn’t used, budget from other programs wasn’t sacrificed to add cameras, and data is stored inside an MIT data center. That’s one reason why I hold skepticism about the objectivity of the authors. I thought the authors were not very generous to the school’s willingness to clarify, and based on that FAQ a lot of accusations/assumptions in the article and discussion seem to be false.

   <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;evpt.mit.edu&#x2F;campus-security-cameras-frequently-asked-questions" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;evpt.mit.edu&#x2F;campus-security-cameras-frequently-aske...

   1. yosamino · 1790375872 · focus · HN ↗

      &gt; Look, I’m not trying to be pro-surveillance state or whatever, but

      ... but why do you then go on making all pro-surveillance state arguments ?

      1. ajkjk · 1790376401 · focus · HN ↗

         Man I wish HN commenters could be bothered to even attempt to read each other charitably instead of this crap

         1. yosamino · 1790377727 · focus · HN ↗

            I did and then I asked a serious question.

            These are arguments that are put forward in favor of mass-surveillance.

            That is in direct contradiction to the claim &quot;I’m not trying to be pro-surveillance state or whatever&quot;.

            So I was wondering how that contradiction comes about and asked about it.

            What would you suggest the charitable reading should be ?

            1. ajkjk · 1790377868 · focus · HN ↗

               You believe them. You believe the line &quot;I&#x27;m not trying to be pro surveillance state&quot;, and then you take seriously the points they made which are completely reasonable things to ask, and you engage critically with them, and discuss how those points are compatible or incompatible with the overall stance. It is easy.

               As a general rule: to engage charitably with someone you believe the things they say they believe, at face value and attempt to understand how they could come to believe those things.

               1. mitxela · 1790420855 · focus · HN ↗

                  Engaging charitably with the bullshit means the bullshit wins.

                  <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Brandolini%27s_law" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Brandolini%27s_law

                  <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Sealioning" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Sealioning

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.