>Hey, at least in Mexico surveillance tech people might wake up to their family chopped to pieces.
One can hope, anyway.
I don't think this is a good thing. The crime is detrimental to innocent people, and although mass surveillance should not be the answer, it can only be fought through democratic processes.
I am curious what Mexico should do long term to reduce crime. The U.S. used to have a bigger problem with organized crime, but it has been subdued before mass surveillance was an option.
Crime in Mexico is down, and continues to trend that way. The homicide rate, for instance, is 22% down from 2024 to 2025.
Mexico is very much in it's New York mafioso days of the 80s. Still endemic, entrenched, and powerful, but losing ground and slowly legitimizing. The reason it's so slow is more to due with high rates of corruption in the government (local to federal) and justice system and the cultural effect it's had on the general populace.
I feel like a lot of this in any country is turning criminal activity into institutionalized predatory business practices. It turns loan shark slaves into economic serfs. Homicide goes down and suicide goes up.
Every time someone mentions crime someone inevitably comes along to mention how according to the completely legitimate crime rates reported by the authorities, crime is disappearing and nothing should be done.
- effectuate mass synthesis of illicit substances in commercial laboratories
- handle massive intercontinental logistics
- build semi-submersible boats
- hire and kidnap radio engineers to help with communications and electronic warfare
but gee, they just can't figure out how to buy a machine shop and hire or kidnap talent to make 100-year-old firearm designs - that's just too much for them?
How is this a counter argument? You are playing GOP vs. Dem games. All I am saying is that the USA is a major firearms manufacturer and exporter. That scandal just reinforced the point.
I think the point was: it might be a bit more expensive for them, but it wouldn't stop them from getting guns. Guns are important to their business, they would manufacture them themselves if they could not buy them.
Would it cost them more? yes. would it be the "number 1 priority" because it's so impactful? no, obviously not.
Maybe I'm overestimating the difficulty of making guns. But I'm aware of zero conflicts in which small arms were manufactured in situ. Even in e.g. Myanmar/Burma. The fact that even remote conflicts go through the trouble of importing arms suggests this might be more difficult than you suggest.
> Maybe I'm overestimating the difficulty of making guns
These are centuries-old objects. Manufacturing technology and materials science have advanced nearly 100 years since Ma Deuce first rolled off the line. Society didn't get dumber, and manufacturing has only gotten more accessible.
Just look at the current state of 3D printed firearms: they're completely useful and viable. CNC machining has never been cheaper or easier to do.
I'm fascinated by your point on Myanmar/Burma since I'm quite sure you used that point since it's common knowledge that is the most commonly cited example of the use of in situ firearms by militia. Maybe you're inviting a debate on why you think the reports on in situ firearms reported there are false, or maybe you just randomly came upon that, but it doesn't seem a coincedence.
Myanmar/Burma the strategy was build-to-capture: make improvised, unreliable firearms that could be used to ambush security forces and take their firearms.
Evidence against the point above that it's trivial to replace professionally manufactured small arms.
It's quite evident their point is that they don't want gun control and have pre-committed to whatever opinions are necessary to prevent it, including an opinion as absurd as "having to manufacture their own firearms would not be a significant impediment to their operations."
Mass synthesis of the drugs that cartels produce is trivial (that's why they produce them)
Putting drugs on trucks is trivial (that's why they do that)
Rudimentary semi-submersible vessels are impressive but you only need a few and they're not that hard to make (again, that's why they make em)
The telecom stuff they do is legitimately pretty impressive, but this too is just significant capex for long term benefit -- not so with self-made guns which are significant capex and you get out the other side a low volume of low-quality, non-dependable, often-breaking guns.
This is a popular idea amongst American liberals who rejoice at any possible means to eliminate/curb/add friction to lawful firearms ownership and manufacturing.
Where are they buying firearms in America at an "industrial scale?" An AR-15 receiver can be turned out in tens of minutes on a fast VMC - good luck stopping this.
What’s the relevance of who “this is a popular idea” to? It’s either a good idea or it’s not.
If it’s so easy, then why aren’t they doing that today and instead we just encounter thousands of guns bought in the US? Must be because that’s easier, correct?
I get the sense you’re a bit pre-committed to your position here though and perceive this as a bit of an identity question.
Yes, showing the preponderance of evidence against your easily disproven argument is actually "my agenda." Great job on calling that out.
I grew up hunting. Like any other redneck, I fired a .308 at 13yrs old, and yes it knocked me to the ground, lol. Skinned a dear that same year. I just didn't choose to make guns my entire identity.
All I am stating is the obvious. The USA is a major firearms manufacturer and exporter.
How do you know "empirically" that they aren't? Who says that the US-sourced guns that they are tracing are even a substantial fraction of the overall guns in use? How can you prove empirically that the data provided by the notoriously-reliable and agenda-less Mexican government is accurate?
> Who says that the US-sourced guns that they are tracing are even a substantial fraction of the overall guns in use?
Statistics?
Believing your implication that homemade firearms or widespread and just don't show up in the seizure data is a little silly unless you can explain why this would be the case.
I think it's still a relevant point. The point isn't necessarily that it's easier for cartels to make it themselves than to smuggle guns or divert them from military sources. It's that the cartels can easily replace smuggled guns with manufactured guns and their demand for them is inelastic enough at either price point it's unlikely to effect the access to cartels.
The more likely effect is it disproportionately stops normal Mexico citizens from obtaining "illegal" guns to protect themselves but the cartels still have them, making things even worse for the Mexican people.
I mean yes if they can truly just replace all the labs and people for not much addition cost, then you're only hurting yourself to raid/jail/prosecute by arresting and raiding the labs because it comes at great cost to yourself while costing your enemy very little and not changing their operations.
You've just explained why the drug war failed and ultimately hurt us more than helped us while doing nothing to destroy the profits of the cartels.
If that's the argument the other fellow would like to make, then sure. But that's not the argument he's making. He's specifically taking issue with trying to add friction to small arms manufacture and trafficking.
I know for a fact that mass methamphetamine and fentanyl synthesis is more technically-difficult, more time consuming, and more capital-intensive than mass-manufacture of firearms - but good luck pushing your "Iron River" narrative lmao.
At the risk of setting off the flame war detector on this website, please explain to me why simple chemistry that can be done anywhere, is easier than setting up a mass-manufacturing factory.
I challenge you to explain to the exact relative differences.
Also, why did you bring up fentanyl? How is that related to the very well documented Iron River? Well, I suppose it actually is, as the USA's very well documented supply of guns to Mexican cartels helps them bring up fent into the USA. Yay! Sorry to interrupt your previous narrative. Please, go on king.
Gee, one requires huge industrial laboratories complete with niche equipment, highly-controlled precursors in massive quantities, and trained chemists.. the other requires commonly-available machinery and universally-obtainable, cheap materials and a scrappy high-school student who excelled in shop class.
Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about. I can have a receiver milled from billet in the time we've spent discussing this.
Even the data you linked explains:
Privately Made Firearms
Law enforcement agencies recovered and submitted 37,980 suspected privately made firearms4 (PMFs) to
ATF for tracing between 2017 and 2021. It is probable that current trace data significantly
underrepresents the number of PMFs recovered in crimes by LEAs due to a variety of challenges
presented by PMFs, to include:
• PMFs involvement in crime is an emerging issue and LEAs are just beginning to institute
uniform training on the recognition, identification, and reporting of PMFs that can lead to more
accurate PMF data being collected.
• PMFs by their nature may have no markings at all, duplicative markings, counterfeit
markings, or markings that appear to be serial numbers on parts of the firearm other than the
frame or receiver. These duplicative, counterfeit, or erroneous markings can be mistaken for
authentic serial numbers and markings causing law enforcement to not recognize the firearm as a
PMF and/or potentially follow false leads based on these markings.
As Figure OFT-04 reflects, the number of suspected PMFs recovered by law enforcement agencies and
submitted to ATF for tracing increased by 1,083% from 2017 (1,629) to 2021 (19,273).
So, just domestically, home private firearms manufacturing totaled more units than all guns traced into Mexico in every given year.
lol making meth or fentanyl doesn’t require very sophisticated knowledge or expertise.
From readily available precursors, you can make fentanyl in less than one day.
The Gupta method (from readily available precursors) takes three steps, all at room temperature, and no specialized equipment at all.
That’s why it’s everywhere.
Versus non-professionally manufactured guns which… statistically pretty much don’t exist. Rounding error on any statistic you could come up with on firearms.
Yep, I'm sure cartels worth billions of dollars in annual revenue are producing tens of thousands of kilos using one-pot tweaker methods. Also which "readily-available" precursors are you referring to here? Can I pick up 10000 kg at Wal-Mart?
Non-professionally-manufactured firearms do exist, the aforementioned ATF traces indicate that they are far more prolific than Mexican imports. VICE produced a documentary almost 15 years ago on cartels in the Philippines manufacturing completely viable firearms without issue - in the woods.
Now you're making a different claim. You said that manufacturing fentanyl requires all sorts of specialized equipment and knowledge. It simply does not.
Does that mean cartels aren't sophisticated manufacturers? No, of course they are.
Second straw-man: no one said homemade firearms literally don't exist. The claim is that they are a rounding error.
I don't think crime can always be fought through democratic processes. What if the whole country lives on heroin exports (Afghanistan)? Any "processes" are doomed to fail, as populace would vote to feed their families.
Wait are we discussing crime as in what a country defines as crime within its own borders, or crime as in “I’m a bigger nation than you and will make you comply with my rules”
"Provide a way" -- what if it's way too expensive, even for a huge country? And populace just doesn't want it (e. g. it goes against sacred texts). And there are no infrastructure nor institutions to build upon. It's close to impossible. And the populace would see us only as a provider of goods.
And morally, why should we provide some other country? Are we the world government? Shouldn't we stop messing with others and keep to our business, as long as they don't mess with us (bomb and export heroin). Why are we suddenly responsible for them?
PS: nevertheless, one country (USA) tried to build democracy in Afghanistan, but failed. And only got scoldings for that.
> "Provide a way" -- what if it's way too expensive, even for a huge country?
Afghanistan has a lot of natural resources.
> And morally, why should we provide some other country? Are we the world government? Shouldn't we stop messing with others and keep to our business, as long as they don't mess with us (bomb and export heroin). Why are we suddenly responsible for them?
Development aid is always a good thing. Soft power is incredibly powerful on the global stage - just look at UN votes. A lot of countries that firmly voted with the Western nations for decades now votes with Russia/China or abstains, corresponding with us scaling back foreign aid and other similar investments. And there's an economic side as well... China used to be a bunch of piss poor farmers, now they're among the world's strongest economies.
And well, either we are the ones who decide where the world is going, we are the top dogs - or we have to submit to China, Russia and the likes, and there is no way this is a good way forward.
> PS: nevertheless, one country (USA) tried to build democracy in Afghanistan, but failed. And only got scoldings for that.
That's because we (I'm German, we were in this mess as well) didn't actually do nation building. Yes, we got rid of the Taliban and we built schools for girls, but that's it. The "army" was to at least 50% only existing on paper, corruption and sexual abuse (bacha bazi, DO NOT google that one if you're not ready for vivid descriptions of child abuse) ran rampant across all of society.
We completely and utterly failed in auditing and oversight. And not just of the Afghani side, but our own as well, see Bagram.
> The U.S. used to have a bigger problem with organized crime, but it has been subdued before mass surveillance was an option.
I thought it was credit cards and electronic payments that subdued organized crime (or at least moved it into the realm of the white collar, lawyer-facilitated “legal” crimes through official channels), which greatly reduces the violence component.
>The crime is detrimental to innocent people, and although mass surveillance should not be the answer, it can only be fought through democratic processes.
Mass surveillance is detrimental to innocent people and to democratic processes.
Anyone deliberately facilitating that certainly deserves the worst fate imaginable. These are tools tailor-made to destroy democracies, we should treat people behind them like we treat ISIS.
Yep once the system is set up, no matter how good its intentions, the government will get a group of bad people who then use said monitoring system to entrench their power.
The article references “public panic buttons” and how
> There is active participation by the citizenry, where they connect their private security devices to the command centers run by the state
You don’t really believe anybody using a “public panic button” or hooking up their own alarm system to law enforcement deserves the worst fate imaginable. That’s a little extreme.
What are we even trying to accomplish here? It sounds like individuals in parts of Mexico are trying to protect themselves.
There has to be some compromise between ideals and reality. If you reflexively tell people “you can’t help the cops for the sake of democracy,” they’re gonna throw out the democracy part and keep the cops part.
Maybe a short stint in jail in the case of misconduct, but the worst fate imaginable? Chopped up in a suitcase?
> Anyone deliberately facilitating that certainly deserves the worst fate imaginable. These are tools tailor-made to destroy democracies, we should treat people behind them like we treat ISIS.
Just so you know, I and many people like me will automatically align with whoever opposes you due to this rhetoric. Whatever it takes to ensure you and those who agree with you never, ever get any foothold in the discourse, let alone power. You are writing extremist and very dangerous things. It’s vile rhetoric and in a just world would be flagged to oblivion.
And this is an excellent example of how "polite" fascists come to power. After all, the one with the more "civilized" rhetoric must be the one to support, regardless of why people are so strongly opposed to them.
> Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and side with with people who aren't openly calling for horrible deaths of those that disagree with them.
And there it is - this is why fascists coach their language in a veneer of politeness. After all, they didn't say it out loud, so whatever they're doing must certainly be the right thing to support. Why is the other side so eagerly opposed to them? Well, that doesn't matter, because they weren't polite about it.
It's important to look at what organizations/corporations/groups are actually doing, not just what they're saying.
Meanwhile, the other side is just openly calling for the horrible deaths of people who disagree with them. So, I can choose the 1) openly homicidal fascist, or 2) the maybe fascist (so you say) who is not openly homicidal.
So, I'm gonna go ahead and side with the people who aren't openly homicidal.
You should side with the people that aren't homicidal, not the ones that are polite and closeted about it.
But also, homicidal is doing some heavy lifting here, isn't it? It may be accurate in this case, but someone saying we should go kill all the Nazis in WW2 because they're actively genociding their people would also fall under that umbrella.
You're arguing that being an open fascist is better than being someone you suspect to be a fascist, even though they haven't said anything that confirms it.
Not at all. Please try reading more carefully and avoid being reductive. I'm arguing that you're confusing the tone of rhetoric with the meaning of it and drawing the wrong conclusion from that. Just because one side is more polite and shrouded by the structure of a corporation doesn't mean you should reflexively support them because of that.
If you are arguing that "siding with the others because of rethoric is dangerous", you are right in general. But to a very surprised reader of this thread, you are arguing with someone that responded to
> Anyone deliberately facilitating that certainly deserves the worst fate imaginable.
That came in a thread started with a now (justly) removed
> might wake up to their family chopped to pieces
This sets the tone I (and possibly others) interpret that message.
I know we are supposed to charitably interpret what people write on here, but a thread like this makes it really hard, given the tone.
You're right, I did pick a bad example. It was extreme, and I'm sure many HN users work for corporations like this and felt targeted.
But it's also worth considering exactly what the mass surveillance state we've got is directly leading to - deaths of many people. How many people have been disappeared or killed by ICE because of technology like this? That's just one group actively targeted by surveillance tech, and the government intends to go after millions more, as they've publicly stated. That's not to mention how many millions of people have had their lives worsened or ruined directly or indirectly because of tech like this.
These sorts of things aren't an innocent startup consisting of a few nerds in a garage, they're shaping the world and setting the stage for the expansion of horrible atrocities. This is ultimately what I mean - you have to look at the effects of what they're doing and the actual consequences. Once you see that and know people who are more directly affected/targeted by these technologies, it becomes a lot more clear why people are so angry at them.
Mexico has a weak Federal gov but more strong local states....
I did not use to be this way, before the revolution it was the opposite.
History wise, started changing in the 1930s as far as illegal drug trafficking groups wrestling local gov, state gov, and fed gov away from law and order missions.
Governments subcontract the private sector for everything from food processing to defense. I’ve heard that Mexico can’t afford to effectively patrol their boarders. It’s only natural for them to turn to a company like this.
> Mexico’s government was also the first purchaser of NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware
> Grupo Seguritech was founded in Mexico City in 1995 by father-son duo Shimon and Ariel Picker as a small company selling alarm systems for homes.
It's remarkable that even in a country where Jewish people make up no more than 0.05% of the population, they excel in this cybersecurity/surveillance arena. The talented ability of Jewish moms to always know the gossip of the community seems to pass down to their entrepreneurial kids!
I don't think this is a good thing. The crime is detrimental to innocent people, and although mass surveillance should not be the answer, it can only be fought through democratic processes.
I am curious what Mexico should do long term to reduce crime. The U.S. used to have a bigger problem with organized crime, but it has been subdued before mass surveillance was an option.
Mexico is very much in it's New York mafioso days of the 80s. Still endemic, entrenched, and powerful, but losing ground and slowly legitimizing. The reason it's so slow is more to due with high rates of corruption in the government (local to federal) and justice system and the cultural effect it's had on the general populace.
US can afford to have militarized police with armoured cars. But the combination of drugs, poverty and weapons is very dangerous
I would imagine that the #1 priority might be to shut down the "Iron River."
The Iron River is the limitless supply of firearms from the USA to Mexican cartels. It is very well documented, and yet we rarely hear about it.
These cartels can:
- effectuate mass synthesis of illicit substances in commercial laboratories
- handle massive intercontinental logistics
- build semi-submersible boats
- hire and kidnap radio engineers to help with communications and electronic warfare
but gee, they just can't figure out how to buy a machine shop and hire or kidnap talent to make 100-year-old firearm designs - that's just too much for them?
https://texasborderbusiness.com/thousands-of-trafficked-guns...
https://www.stl.news/atf-seizes-illegal-firearms-bound-mexic...
And yes the solution to things like organized crime is always just a continuous chipping away and adding friction where you can.
Not giving them massive amounts of cheap, high quality firearms seems like a meaningful goal.
Would it cost them more? yes. would it be the "number 1 priority" because it's so impactful? no, obviously not.
Maybe I'm overestimating the difficulty of making guns. But I'm aware of zero conflicts in which small arms were manufactured in situ. Even in e.g. Myanmar/Burma. The fact that even remote conflicts go through the trouble of importing arms suggests this might be more difficult than you suggest.
These are centuries-old objects. Manufacturing technology and materials science have advanced nearly 100 years since Ma Deuce first rolled off the line. Society didn't get dumber, and manufacturing has only gotten more accessible.
Just look at the current state of 3D printed firearms: they're completely useful and viable. CNC machining has never been cheaper or easier to do.
Evidence against the point above that it's trivial to replace professionally manufactured small arms.
Mass synthesis of the drugs that cartels produce is trivial (that's why they produce them)
Putting drugs on trucks is trivial (that's why they do that)
Rudimentary semi-submersible vessels are impressive but you only need a few and they're not that hard to make (again, that's why they make em)
The telecom stuff they do is legitimately pretty impressive, but this too is just significant capex for long term benefit -- not so with self-made guns which are significant capex and you get out the other side a low volume of low-quality, non-dependable, often-breaking guns.
Where are they buying firearms in America at an "industrial scale?" An AR-15 receiver can be turned out in tens of minutes on a fast VMC - good luck stopping this.
If it’s so easy, then why aren’t they doing that today and instead we just encounter thousands of guns bought in the US? Must be because that’s easier, correct?
I get the sense you’re a bit pre-committed to your position here though and perceive this as a bit of an identity question.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/report/nfcta-volume-ii-par...
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/report/firearms-trace-data/fire...
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-322
https://www.gao.gov/video/weapons-recovered-arms-trafficking...
I grew up hunting. Like any other redneck, I fired a .308 at 13yrs old, and yes it knocked me to the ground, lol. Skinned a dear that same year. I just didn't choose to make guns my entire identity.
All I am stating is the obvious. The USA is a major firearms manufacturer and exporter.
The answer is that it is in fact easier to just buy them in the US.
Mexico, 10 years ago: https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-cartel-gunsmiths/
Philippines, 13 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67PYuGQM9Fg
Statistics?
Believing your implication that homemade firearms or widespread and just don't show up in the seizure data is a little silly unless you can explain why this would be the case.
The more likely effect is it disproportionately stops normal Mexico citizens from obtaining "illegal" guns to protect themselves but the cartels still have them, making things even worse for the Mexican people.
they can also easily replace labs, guess we shouldn't raid them ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
they can also easily replace ... guess we shouldn't ...
You've just explained why the drug war failed and ultimately hurt us more than helped us while doing nothing to destroy the profits of the cartels.
I challenge you to explain to the exact relative differences.
Also, why did you bring up fentanyl? How is that related to the very well documented Iron River? Well, I suppose it actually is, as the USA's very well documented supply of guns to Mexican cartels helps them bring up fent into the USA. Yay! Sorry to interrupt your previous narrative. Please, go on king.
Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about. I can have a receiver milled from billet in the time we've spent discussing this.
Even the data you linked explains:
Privately Made Firearms Law enforcement agencies recovered and submitted 37,980 suspected privately made firearms4 (PMFs) to ATF for tracing between 2017 and 2021. It is probable that current trace data significantly underrepresents the number of PMFs recovered in crimes by LEAs due to a variety of challenges presented by PMFs, to include: • PMFs involvement in crime is an emerging issue and LEAs are just beginning to institute uniform training on the recognition, identification, and reporting of PMFs that can lead to more accurate PMF data being collected. • PMFs by their nature may have no markings at all, duplicative markings, counterfeit markings, or markings that appear to be serial numbers on parts of the firearm other than the frame or receiver. These duplicative, counterfeit, or erroneous markings can be mistaken for authentic serial numbers and markings causing law enforcement to not recognize the firearm as a PMF and/or potentially follow false leads based on these markings. As Figure OFT-04 reflects, the number of suspected PMFs recovered by law enforcement agencies and submitted to ATF for tracing increased by 1,083% from 2017 (1,629) to 2021 (19,273).
So, just domestically, home private firearms manufacturing totaled more units than all guns traced into Mexico in every given year.
From readily available precursors, you can make fentanyl in less than one day.
The Gupta method (from readily available precursors) takes three steps, all at room temperature, and no specialized equipment at all.
That’s why it’s everywhere.
Versus non-professionally manufactured guns which… statistically pretty much don’t exist. Rounding error on any statistic you could come up with on firearms.
Non-professionally-manufactured firearms do exist, the aforementioned ATF traces indicate that they are far more prolific than Mexican imports. VICE produced a documentary almost 15 years ago on cartels in the Philippines manufacturing completely viable firearms without issue - in the woods.
Does that mean cartels aren't sophisticated manufacturers? No, of course they are.
Second straw-man: no one said homemade firearms literally don't exist. The claim is that they are a rounding error.
I wish for you a happy rest of your day.
Invade and, this time, provide a way for the population to earn a honest living. "Let them eat cake" just doesn't work out.
And morally, why should we provide some other country? Are we the world government? Shouldn't we stop messing with others and keep to our business, as long as they don't mess with us (bomb and export heroin). Why are we suddenly responsible for them?
PS: nevertheless, one country (USA) tried to build democracy in Afghanistan, but failed. And only got scoldings for that.
Afghanistan has a lot of natural resources.
> And morally, why should we provide some other country? Are we the world government? Shouldn't we stop messing with others and keep to our business, as long as they don't mess with us (bomb and export heroin). Why are we suddenly responsible for them?
Development aid is always a good thing. Soft power is incredibly powerful on the global stage - just look at UN votes. A lot of countries that firmly voted with the Western nations for decades now votes with Russia/China or abstains, corresponding with us scaling back foreign aid and other similar investments. And there's an economic side as well... China used to be a bunch of piss poor farmers, now they're among the world's strongest economies.
And well, either we are the ones who decide where the world is going, we are the top dogs - or we have to submit to China, Russia and the likes, and there is no way this is a good way forward.
> PS: nevertheless, one country (USA) tried to build democracy in Afghanistan, but failed. And only got scoldings for that.
That's because we (I'm German, we were in this mess as well) didn't actually do nation building. Yes, we got rid of the Taliban and we built schools for girls, but that's it. The "army" was to at least 50% only existing on paper, corruption and sexual abuse (bacha bazi, DO NOT google that one if you're not ready for vivid descriptions of child abuse) ran rampant across all of society.
We completely and utterly failed in auditing and oversight. And not just of the Afghani side, but our own as well, see Bagram.
I thought it was credit cards and electronic payments that subdued organized crime (or at least moved it into the realm of the white collar, lawyer-facilitated “legal” crimes through official channels), which greatly reduces the violence component.
Mass surveillance is detrimental to innocent people and to democratic processes.
Anyone deliberately facilitating that certainly deserves the worst fate imaginable. These are tools tailor-made to destroy democracies, we should treat people behind them like we treat ISIS.
> There is active participation by the citizenry, where they connect their private security devices to the command centers run by the state
You don’t really believe anybody using a “public panic button” or hooking up their own alarm system to law enforcement deserves the worst fate imaginable. That’s a little extreme.
What are we even trying to accomplish here? It sounds like individuals in parts of Mexico are trying to protect themselves.
There has to be some compromise between ideals and reality. If you reflexively tell people “you can’t help the cops for the sake of democracy,” they’re gonna throw out the democracy part and keep the cops part.
Maybe a short stint in jail in the case of misconduct, but the worst fate imaginable? Chopped up in a suitcase?
You went from "license plate readers, stationary cameras, and panic buttons abound" in the article to "panic buttons", feels a bit dishonest.
Just so you know, I and many people like me will automatically align with whoever opposes you due to this rhetoric. Whatever it takes to ensure you and those who agree with you never, ever get any foothold in the discourse, let alone power. You are writing extremist and very dangerous things. It’s vile rhetoric and in a just world would be flagged to oblivion.
And there it is - this is why fascists coach their language in a veneer of politeness. After all, they didn't say it out loud, so whatever they're doing must certainly be the right thing to support. Why is the other side so eagerly opposed to them? Well, that doesn't matter, because they weren't polite about it.
It's important to look at what organizations/corporations/groups are actually doing, not just what they're saying.
So, I'm gonna go ahead and side with the people who aren't openly homicidal.
But also, homicidal is doing some heavy lifting here, isn't it? It may be accurate in this case, but someone saying we should go kill all the Nazis in WW2 because they're actively genociding their people would also fall under that umbrella.
Weird take.
> Anyone deliberately facilitating that certainly deserves the worst fate imaginable.
That came in a thread started with a now (justly) removed
> might wake up to their family chopped to pieces
This sets the tone I (and possibly others) interpret that message.
I know we are supposed to charitably interpret what people write on here, but a thread like this makes it really hard, given the tone.
But it's also worth considering exactly what the mass surveillance state we've got is directly leading to - deaths of many people. How many people have been disappeared or killed by ICE because of technology like this? That's just one group actively targeted by surveillance tech, and the government intends to go after millions more, as they've publicly stated. That's not to mention how many millions of people have had their lives worsened or ruined directly or indirectly because of tech like this.
These sorts of things aren't an innocent startup consisting of a few nerds in a garage, they're shaping the world and setting the stage for the expansion of horrible atrocities. This is ultimately what I mean - you have to look at the effects of what they're doing and the actual consequences. Once you see that and know people who are more directly affected/targeted by these technologies, it becomes a lot more clear why people are so angry at them.
I did not use to be this way, before the revolution it was the opposite.
History wise, started changing in the 1930s as far as illegal drug trafficking groups wrestling local gov, state gov, and fed gov away from law and order missions.
https://seguritech.com/en
> Grupo Seguritech was founded in Mexico City in 1995 by father-son duo Shimon and Ariel Picker as a small company selling alarm systems for homes.
It's remarkable that even in a country where Jewish people make up no more than 0.05% of the population, they excel in this cybersecurity/surveillance arena. The talented ability of Jewish moms to always know the gossip of the community seems to pass down to their entrepreneurial kids!
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.