>"Why would it have a chilling effect if the superintendent of the school might see something that slips through the system about someone went hunting?" he asked. "There's no threat."
How is the following not harm?
>He pointed to a recent incident in which Social Sentinel flagged a college student who threatened on Twitter to shoot his professor for scheduling an early morning exam. (The student, who said he intended no harm, was arrested.)
They're not dense. These people consider that kind of stuff perfectly acceptable because they have a world view in which living in totalitarian society is acceptable. Their world view simply does not align with yours or mine. They simply do not consider the use these kind of systems to be fundamentally incompatible with free society the way you or I do.
Your comment reminds me of a cautionary essay by a adolescent psychologist. Her warning was that psychologists are not a normative group because of the conformist selection process. Getting a PhD in psychology is an exercise in knuckling under. That is something that is pretty alien to a typical teenager.
As a result psychologists often see aberrant behavior in adolescents that is actually gob smack normal and ultimately harmless.
This thread is frustrating. First off, there's a typo in the quote. The word "who" is missing: "..someone who went hunting?"
Second off, even if the missing word was "we": "...someone we went hunting." The CEO of the company supplying the software has a direct incentive to see things from the other side. It's not denseness; it's business.
This is not a battle between totalitarians and freedom fighters, it's a battle between those who think security is more important within this context, and those who think privacy is more important within this context.
That's...literally everyone who supports totalitarian and authoritarian states. They support it because they share its values, and they like that those values are enforced.
Nobody goes "well they put my ma in the gulag, but I still agree with them politically"
When organizations spend money on a 'tool' they will find a justification for it's existence.
30 years ago the city I lived in bought a helicopter for the police. So they could 'spot criminals from the air'. They actually appear to use it mostly to look for teenagers hanging out in parks after hours.
Consequence of widespread gun availability: all petty threats have to be taken seriously. In a world where every few months someone does turn up and murder several people at school, which is then all over the national news, it's hard to see how it can be otherwise.
>"Why would it have a chilling effect if the superintendent of the school might see something that slips through the system about someone went hunting?" he asked. "There's no threat."
How is the following not harm?
>He pointed to a recent incident in which Social Sentinel flagged a college student who threatened on Twitter to shoot his professor for scheduling an early morning exam. (The student, who said he intended no harm, was arrested.)