zlacker

I commented about this on another thread, and probably most around here disagree with my general point there, but this fact amazes me. We have gotten all this tech creating a surveillance state but then it isn't even used to give better policing. You will just get mugged on camera by someone with ten prior charges and then be ignored by police.

>>runsWp+(OP)
All the recent policy, technical leaps, and innovation around policing seem to be focused on cracking down on protesting and speech, and not really on what people would consider "fighting crime". You could get mugged on the street corner in broad daylight (or worse) and the police won't even answer your phone call, but the minute you show up on that street corner with 10 friends carrying signs and shouting, 20 officers will show up in riot gear, and every one of you will be identified using technology.

>>ryandr+dh
The purpose of the system (the police in this casse) is what it does.

Always been that way, always will be. It's just a little harder to bury your head in the sand than it used to be.

>>runsWp+(OP)
The surveillance is there not to catch small thieves, but those who are against the government, against wars etc. A small thief doesn't threaten the regime in any way so he can be dealt with after more dangerous people are dealt with.

>>codedo+3p
In fact, the petty criminal may benefit the regime, if his crimes damage those the regime sees as a greater threat to itself and its goals.

>>aaronb+Hq
The petty thief causes the useful idiots to clamor for more dragnet.

>>potato+Vh
the purpose of circular logic is circular logic

>>potato+Vh
The purpose of the system (the police in this casse) is what it does.

Nope. That's an ideology, not a statement of fact. It completely negates the possibility that systems can become corrupted (or simply fail) and no longer work towards their original purpose.

>>chongl+Hz1
Nope. That's an imposition of metaphysics onto what is solely clearly mere empiricism.

>>chongl+Hz1
"systems can become corrupted (or simply fail) and no longer work towards their original purpose"

Er, that's exactly what "the purpose of a system is what it does" means.

>>arrows+6M2
No, “the purpose of a system is what it does” implies that the original intent of the creators of a system was for it to become corrupted.

>>chongl+dn4
That's one way to read the literal meaning of the words, but it's not what the phrase means as originally intended.

>>arrows+Kp4
Right, but then we apply the phrase to itself and this is what we get!

>>chongl+Hz1
Nope. You added that extra word "original" in there.