Take some hope. This case exposes the technology for the naked fascism it really is. We always knew this is where it would lead, and that there are few legitimate, ethical uses for face recognition tech. That it was a lawyer taking her kid to a show is priceless and will surely contribute to the blanket ban we all hope for.

> The Constitution wasn’t designed for this.

The Constitution wasn't designed for a multi-racial democracy, either. It took a bloody civil war to settle the slavery question though.

And even after the civil war was ended, over 150 years ago, there's still significant portions of people in the modern day who don't act as if the matter is settled.

The constitution was a compromise between different ideas pushed by different people. It is not a holy text or necessarily the ideal outcome from the point of view of any of its signatories. Its historical and philosophical importance are immense. But even from day one, it was not supposed to be the be-all and end-all. There are lots of things it was not designed to handle.

Was the First Amendment intended to apply to Speech by means of Photons and Electric Particles flying at sub-light-speed to 10s 100s or 1000s of Remote Viewers? Was the Fifth Amendment designed to protect magnetic patterns in Etched Silicon?

No, but there are mechanisms in place by which the Constitution can be Updated.

> America and the west as whole is not actually significantly different from China with stuff like this.

As someone who has spent many years of my life living outside "America and the West": this is not remotely true.

I moved from outside into the West and I’m inclined to agree with you. It feels different here. There’s much more trust, even when Westerners mock their institutions, there is a higher baseline and more implied trust.

The thing is that it’s easy to voice an opinion. And you can be confident that the institutions will endure even if you weaken them, which provides a safety net for populists who have incentives to use corrosive language and attitudes for electoral reasons without fearing a complete breakdown of the state or society.

We’ve seen this countless times. However upset people are about Medicare and public welfare, they still want to get some support when they need.

It is a factor for instability in the long term, but it is an unavoidable cost of having free speech. Ideally, it would be fought against with a good public education system.

I'd like to see a new Constitution with a Bill of Responsibilities, one of them being to know how to live without certain modern necessities for proscribed periods of time.

Jury Duty, but a couple Weeks a Year of Camping in the Wilderness with your Family.

Same, America and the West are significantly different from places like China or Russia. It's not even close.

Why do you think that is?

History and culture.

what are some stand-out differences?

In most Western countries there is an extremely broadly held belief in individual liberty, which can be summed up as "do whatever you want as long as you don't unreasonably burden others". There is significant disagreement on what exactly does or does not "unreasonably burden others", but the core belief is held across the political spectrum for all except the extreme ends of the tankie left and fascist-y right.

Other differences, such as a belief in democracy, free speech, freedom of religion, etc. flow from this.

You mean besides freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and democracy?

One more: in Russia it’s legal to beat your wife. Look it up, it’s very recent.

Oh well that's certainly a relief in this context! I do appreciate the input here, but maybe to help you engage with the actual thought a little better (and for my edification, perhaps) do you have any reasons or theories as to why this is the case?

I doubt this question can be answered in a short comment. The differences stem from thousands of years of diverging cultural influences, history and geography. As for Russia, this video gives a good introduction to the origins of Russian Authoritarianism (with comparisons to power structures in China and Europe over history), that go all the way back to the 5th century A.D. with the Huns and the unique geography/climate of Russia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8ZqBLcIvw0.

So, how does the U.S.A fare in this kind of thinking? There isn't such a vast history to pull from there, how can you justify an analogous nationalistic identity/moral character for it without such a big story?

Also, what is the argument for being able to collapse culture and state together, such that the state can/will manifest this trans-historic character of a group of people? Or rather, if we grant that relation either way, does the argument have anything to say about any of the tumultuous events of politics and culture in Russia or China in the 20th century? Are they just hiccups along the overall trend? Such that the CCP isn't an authoritarian regime from without which harms china now, but an inevitable symptom of some trans-historic Chinese culture?

| There isn't such a vast history to pull from there, how can you justify an analogous nationalistic identity/moral character for it without such a big story?

Well, exactly - that explains a lot of the current political/cultural fragmentation of the U.S. population. Although you can definitely argue that though it is a "short" story in comparison, the founding of the U.S. as a revolution to gain independence from the British Crown to found a state by the people, for the people, with its own constitution and Bill of Rights is a "big" story nonetheless.

As to your other questions - good questions - one could write a whole book (or several) addressing them.

Isn't this such a sad and ultimately negative worldview though? Instead of an Earth of humans, you have an array of static types. Instead of a history where there is change, where people can overcome things and vie for better world, you seem to say there is only an illusion of change, and really its all just scaling an infrastructure set in stone a long time ago. You look at people far away, and first and foremost comprehend them as a kind different than yourself. Just an entire country of millions, thought at once as a particular!

It makes me sad just knowing people hold these beliefs. It's like internalizing the world as a bad fantasy novel.

I don't see how it's so negative...there is still definitely change happening and we are not static. Thousands of years ago when we were hunter gatherers, humans would speak different languages living just 10 miles away, and tribes would battle/murder each other just a few miles away. Even as fractured as the U.S. is, we are still in the long run progressing towards are more united humanity (i.e. millions are not battling in a civil war over "differences" like in the 1860's).

Probably agree on some points here (not sure how the U.S. specifically is leading the way, but whatever), but insofar as I do, it kind of takes the force out of your original point. Differences can be justified by saying "oh they are Chinese, they are just like this," but then you also want to say, "well we can transcend it too". Why can't the Chinese or the Russians? It's wholly unfalsifiable, it gives nothing but justification to nationalistic thinking where its convenient, while still allowing you to drop that as well when that's also convenient. It doesn't say anything at all other than "they are bad because of history/geography, but we can be good despite our history/geography." It is, to be frank, childish nonlogic at best, and potential fuel for fascist tendencies at worst.

And just to recapitualate, this is all just for you to say that the U.S.A and China are distinct enough that the former would never use surveillance on citizens (or whatever) like they do in China. And ultimately proves my point that you can't make that claim without nationalistic thinking!

1) I never said the U.S. is "leading the way". Just using it as and example. China and Russia also had their own civil wars/struggles and are now more united than thousands of years ago. 2) I don't get where you got the statement "they are bad" since I never said that. "They are bad" is a statement that always oversimplifies the situation when applied to a whole country. The problem is the very small percentage of people in position of power in China/Russia that are hoarding the power/money and there is no mechanism (i.e. popular elections) for the populace to remove them from power.

Im sorry, I can't really follow how this point is related to any of your others. Regardless, on its face, I would say this new story is maybe a good answer: that because of real democracy, the United States and others are less likely to use surveillance like Russia and China, because those in power who would benefit from such things fear they will lose the vote. But can you honestly tell me, just say over the past 20 years, that this idea checks out? There is already some facts we know that troubles it at least..

And for another thing, intelligence agencies are by design resistant to electoral turnover. And regardless, such agencies for the most part have broad bipartisan support, because in fact, both parties have ultimately the same incentives with stuff like this.

So I'll accept this new thing as a good argument, but history as it has unfolded has made me weary to put such total trust in even the finest examples of democracy and statehood. Because, again, incentive and efficiency are powerful forces to even the most principled people.

> I know this is just a rhetorical point of yours, but maybe we can start to accept that America and the west as whole is not actually significantly different from China with stuff like this.

This is such black-and-white thinking. Most EU countries are kilometers ahead of the US, and the US is miles ahead of Russia. Putin would love for Russia to race to the bottom and get to China's level, but Russia is way behind China in terms of technical expertise, investment, infrastructure, and actual coordination/coercion between government and industry (vs crony corruption). And then there are the new Chinese colonies in Africa who get all the surveillance and none of the benefits.

My thoughts about surveillance and such in the world at large may well be wrong or naive, but I'm pretty sure I am not the one being black and white here. I think, in order to tell me off like you want to do here, you should say I am too equivocating of things, that I am not black and white enough!

You could be like "you see some particulars and generalize too quickly, countries do live and die by principles, not 'efficiency' or abstract incentive. You're turning everything grey, and forget that there is light and darkness, good guys and bad guys, black and white." That seems to be what you want to say to me, no?

You're derailing this from a substantive discussion about surveillance to one about the meaning of a colloquial metaphor. I'm not going to debate the meaning of "black and white." If you want to make a substantive comment about whether there are national differences in the level of surveillance, I'll reply. But I won't take the semantics bait.

I'm sorry I guess. You responded to only my first statement by just saying that, in fact, Russia bad and USA good. I don't really know what to say to that, its not adding anything, or speaking to my very small and abstract reflections about incentive, justification, and culture.

I'm sure many/most people would be happy to talk to you about how some countries are worse than others, why even choose to respond to me, where such things aren't adding anything?