[HN Gopher] Automatically tagging politician when they use their...
___________________________________________________________________
Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the
livestreams
Author : driesdep
Score : 250 points
Date : 2025-03-06 10:22 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (driesdepoorter.be)
(TXT) w3m dump (driesdepoorter.be)
| tomglynch wrote:
| Tracking their stats is a great idea!
| kelseydh wrote:
| Looks like the last tweet was from 2022?
| https://x.com/FlemishScroller
| netsharc wrote:
| He (oh he is you, OP) has got a lot of different projects,
| including one that was tracking people on EarthCam streams and
| trying to find their Instagram post (or the other way around):
|
| https://driesdepoorter.be/thefollower/ , which went sort of
| viral: https://mashable.com/article/instagram-stalking-ai-facial-
| re...
|
| I wonder why you self-promote and repost your "old" stuff
| though..
| sergers wrote:
| Yea kind of odd when the last post by which the submission
| about is from 2022 when it appears to be last active.
|
| If there was some update, revelation, or even just being
| active.
|
| I am seeing this person being referred as an "artist".
|
| Thinking its a ploy for sales... they arent really selling
| anything i would consider valuable or sellable (eye of the
| beholder?).
| Propelloni wrote:
| > they arent really selling anything i would consider
| valuable or sellable (eye of the beholder?).
|
| Which meshes well with art, so maybe the OP, in fact, is an
| artist.
| nkmnz wrote:
| "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other
| people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
| sergers wrote:
| True...
| itishappy wrote:
| I suspect you may just not value artists or art because your
| comment is quite dismissive. There are artists putting
| significantly less effort into their creations than this who
| sell them for significantly more. This particular exhibit
| isn't even for sale.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| > I wonder why you self-promote and repost your "old" stuff
| though..
|
| Personal branding / marketing? Pretty common on HN if you look
| out for it.
| guy234 wrote:
| Whoever wrote this must really like taking pictures of
| electronics.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| This is useless, if you don't know what they're doing on their
| phones.
|
| Fact checking the speaker? Playing candy crush? Who knows.
| bedane wrote:
| Nope it's useful.
|
| Those people need to feel some kind of pressure and invasive
| monitoring. Because they're the ones who vote to allow it or
| not.
| amiga386 wrote:
| Watching porn!
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61245040
|
| https://news.sky.com/story/neil-parish-mp-accused-of-watchin...
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > We are supposed to set an example in this place
|
| I think that went out of the window a long time ago. All the
| shouting and booing - they're like kids watching a pantomime.
| tyingq wrote:
| And the loophole is apparently to just use a laptop or tablet,
| like two of the not-highlighted politicians in the photo.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Fun, but also kind of a dick move to apply bossware to more
| people; the phone is where the real politics happens.
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| No, if anything, all that stuff regular people are subjected
| to, must be now be used against people in power just to let
| them feel the weight of reality they have created. It is not
| that dissimilar to how Musk flights were tracked by a bot on
| Twitter not that long ago.
|
| Is it a dick move? Sure, but I am tired of there being two set
| of rules for those with power and those without it.
| mathgeek wrote:
| > Sure, but I am tired of there being two set of rules for
| those with power and those without it.
|
| Can you elaborate on how this project is going to impact
| that? What change do you expect will come about from it?
| bondarchuk wrote:
| Can you elaborate on how this is not obvious to you? Sorry
| but this feels borderline concern-trollish.
| mathgeek wrote:
| It was an honest question, and no, your implication is
| not obvious to me. Let's assume best intent instead of
| defaulting to "no, you."
| grayhatter wrote:
| IIRC a lot of politicians in the US have been very anti-
| gay, until a family member they cared about came out as
| gay. Suddenly, and only then did they start to care about
| human rights.
|
| Ideally, this will result in more politicians being upset
| about needless ~~user~~ human hostility. And perhaps a few
| of them will understand the implications of why it's bad.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| Go walk around any major city; we'll wait. You were just
| recorded and analyzed by humans and software countless
| times. Did you do anything that could be misinterpreted as
| illegal, antisocial or even just different? Are you
| prepared to answer for it strangers who wield the might of
| the state? Share it all publicly? Prove you're not guilty
| of anything or justify your lifestyle choices? How does
| that make you feel?
|
| To me this is an example of making those on the other side
| experience the same thing. The good ones will find some
| empathy and affect positive change; even the bad ones will
| make the right decisions in naked self interest.
| geysersam wrote:
| In what way has the Belgian parlament participated in
| bringing about the surveillance ad-industry or the american
| tech oligarchy?
|
| If anything European politicians have struggled against the
| surveillance monopolies and enforced more online privacy
| protection than any other leaders on the planet. You can
| argue the effort hasn't been sufficiently successful and
| you're probably right about that.
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| five eyes had buy in all around in EU.
|
| European council still forces all government to buy
| exclusively from Microsoft despite a whole documentary and
| outcry about it. the IT mamager is now even further
| promoted.
| itishappy wrote:
| Agreed, but maybe the goal is to drive awareness that this is a
| dick move in the people best positioned to enact change?
| underseacables wrote:
| Please do this for congress!! It would be fascinating to see
| stats posted for each person, etc. BUT more interesting would be
| the response of the politicians. Will they use their devices
| less, or will the cameras be ordered turned off and the live
| stream halted?
| redeux wrote:
| I think there's probably 3 outcomes.
|
| 1. Republic lawmakers won't care because their base won't care
|
| 2. Democrats will use their phones less because their
| contituents expect them to take their role seriously
|
| 3. Politicians will use this performatively when "the other
| side" is speaking
| Jach wrote:
| Having once sat in one of the chairs in the House Chamber, I'll
| fault no politician for fidgeting with their phone. If whatever
| is being discussed is rather irrelevant or droning on, you've
| got to do something to stay awake with such comfort.
| zlagen wrote:
| this kind of surveillance is childish and a bit creepy too
| smallpipe wrote:
| These people are elected and paid more than enough to pay
| attention. If they can't be bothered doing their job, we'll
| elect someone else who can.
| unreal37 wrote:
| You don't know if they're doing their job from a photo.
| Perhaps they're replying to constituents, reading the details
| of the law they are being asked to vote on, checking with
| colleagues on the status of votes, etc. You don't know. It's
| just harassment without facts.
| theultdev wrote:
| Well they can do that with paper.
|
| They should have the details of the law printed out in
| front of them.
|
| Scrolling through on a phone seems very limited.
|
| They can write down notes and they can reply to
| constituents after they vote.
| grayhatter wrote:
| Yeah! We used to write code on paper too! Software
| engnieers should only use paper too!
|
| All computer programs should also be printed and reviewed
| using punch cards!
|
| A literal computer with arguably more features than a
| modern desktop is too limited!
|
| This is a totally sane take! I know I like writing things
| twice, or using a format without any ability to search
| through it.
| nitwit005 wrote:
| There is not a soul on this planet that attends meetings or
| talks regularly, and pays constant attention.
| vargr616 wrote:
| they do 10x worse on the general population.
|
| Politicians, especially the high ranking ones, should have 100%
| transparent lives and be monitorised by independent
| organisation at all times, as they work for the benefit of the
| public
| geysersam wrote:
| > Politicians, especially the high ranking ones, should have
| 100% transparent lives
|
| For what purpose? What would you achieve by doing that?
| lukan wrote:
| 100% surveillance would give you all of the backroom deals.
| The promises of executive positions in companies later on,
| if just this bill passes..
|
| But, not practical. (I mean, it would also include bank
| account numbers, nuclear start codes, ..)
| jplrssn wrote:
| No one sensible would agree to live like this. You'd be
| left only with politicians who were in it for all the
| wrong reasons.
| geysersam wrote:
| If that's the case maybe you should surveil the business
| people making the shady deals instead?
|
| But no.. surveiling the dealings of multinational oil
| companies would be a totally bizarre intrusion into their
| privacy and the private property right of the owners...
| but extremely intrusive surveillance of public servants
| is fine and their just punishment for doing very
| demanding work for relatively low compensation.
|
| Sounds completely brainwashed if you ask me. You need to
| recognize who your friends are.
|
| If you think our economic system has this severely
| corrupting influence maybe we should consider doing
| something about that. You don't strike me as a stranger
| to radical reform.
| lukan wrote:
| Yup, raise compensation in return, but the price for power
| should be more transparency. But maybe not 100%. Even
| politicians should have the right for a private bedroom and
| maybe their families as well .. though it is of course of
| some public interest, with whom the politicians sleep at
| night.
| tomaytotomato wrote:
| I mean if it wasn't the 21st century, they would be having a
| snooze or reading a newspaper or magazine probably.
|
| Having a politican 100% committed and listening all the time
| would be great, but they would quit in no time I'm sure, at least
| I would.
| lukan wrote:
| "I mean if it wasn't the 21st century, they would be having a
| snooze or reading a newspaper or magazine probably"
|
| Reading a newspaper in parliament? Have not seen that, it would
| clearly be seen as a sign of disrespect to the speaker, even
| more so than a mobile as it has a higher vissibility.
|
| And dazing off was probably more productive and healthy,
| because I doubt, politicians are immune to addictive engagement
| feeds. Meaning I don't think most of that smartphone use is
| actually productive.
| redeux wrote:
| If they're not committed and listening they should quit
| immediately. Their work has an extremely outsized impact on
| their country. If they can't do their job they should leave and
| let someone else who can fill that role.
| throwaway173738 wrote:
| Do you ever "take a quick break" at work?
| redeux wrote:
| I never use my phone during a meeting
| neilv wrote:
| This seems to be an art installation, but I see no explanation of
| what it means. Is there subtext that's obvious to someone from
| Belgium (e.g., politicians on phones is a known hot issue)? Or is
| the viewer supposed to interpret?
|
| BTW, if the main complaint that you have about your politicians
| is that they sometimes look at their phones while in meetings,
| you're doing really well, count your blessings.
| bondarchuk wrote:
| Obviously the subtext is that they are faffing off on their
| phones and not using their presence at a parliamentary meeting
| to represent the interests of their constituents in that
| meeting, which is what they were elected to do. Though from
| that perspective we should also focus some more on the empty
| seats, then.
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| _> presence at a parliamentary meeting (...) which is what
| they were elected to do_
|
| Parliamentarians from all around the world gasp in shock and
| revulsion
| amiga386 wrote:
| It's somewhat tricky to measure the effectiveness of your MP,
| because of course their work output is _politics_.
|
| We have https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ in the UK, which is a
| fantastic site, listing everything your MP does in
| Parliament. But the truth is that most MPs always vote
| exactly how their party tells them, and rarely speak. The
| main chamber in Parliament is mostly national debate on how
| to run the country, and amendments and motions are put
| forward _outwith_ that chamber, by teams of MPs communicating
| with the Speaker 's office.
|
| Most MPs in the Commons are just waiting their turn to speak,
| and they wrote their speech the day before. The rest only
| turn up at voting time, and vote how they were told to by
| their party, then leave again. They don't listen to speeches,
| it's not going to make them vote differently.
|
| So perhaps we need all the MP's official emails and texts to
| truly scrutinize their activity. Their presence and focus in
| the chamber is of limited importance.
|
| What's more useful, IMHO, are when MPs join the various
| Parliamentary committees and listen to witnesses, scrutinize
| legislation line-by-line, and such. Those are meetings where
| I'd like MPs to be fully focused.
| suddenclarity wrote:
| > if the main complaint that you have about your politicians is
| that they sometimes look at their phones
|
| It's just a cheap shot to rile up people that don't know
| better. Actively listening and arguing with opposition in the
| Parliament have very little to do with actual politics.
|
| Swedish newspapers do a similar thing every year when they name
| and shame the politicians that submitted the fewest bills,
| making no mention of the fact that they are all useless and
| will be rejected in the current system. Somewhat related, The
| Social Democrats abuse the system and use AI to generate
| hundreds of questions each month that the government have to
| research and give written responses to. It's all a ton of
| pointless work that have negative impact on actually getting
| things done.
|
| I'm confident most people can agree that Belgium have worse
| problems. Without knowing the details, I believe them going two
| years without a government had more impact than politicians
| using their phones while waiting for their time to speak or
| vote.
| cinntaile wrote:
| The fact that Belgium could function without too much issues
| for that long points to that it did not have much of an
| impact. This is because a lot of the things that a normal
| federal government does, is done by the regions in Belgium.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Art is like that, you don't always get a prepackaged
| explanation of how you "should" interpret it.
|
| Edit: perhaps the work of the politicians can be thought of in
| the same way; a lot of the job is performance art.
| totetsu wrote:
| Living in a country that doesn't speak my first language, I use
| the dictionary all the time during meetings and presentations. I
| hate it when people tell me that's rude.. Okay I'll just sit here
| and not understand what was said to keep up appearances?
| bondarchuk wrote:
| Presumably that specific reason would not apply to high-level
| politicians in their own country, and if it did they would have
| a real-time translator.
| Lanolderen wrote:
| In other wording, if someone is speaking about a subject I'm
| not entirely familiar with, I'd likely be googling different
| details to get a more real picture than the one presented by
| the person proposing changes. Incentives and all that. An
| issue with political discourse in parliaments is that it's a
| meeting with a lot of important people so you can't really
| ask for clarifications again and again as you would in a 5
| person meeting at work if you don't understand something you
| feel might be important. Partially because if everyone
| started asking for clarifications the topics won't get
| anywhere and partially because it's politics so you have to
| appear competent at all times.
| dylan604 wrote:
| If you're constantly looking up things on your phone about
| what a speaker just said, you'll miss the thing being said
| right now. Humans cannot multitask. Anyone that says they
| can are lying or are misguided at best. So instead of
| missing one thing, you've put yourself in a position to
| miss even more rather than looking up something afterwards.
| LocalH wrote:
| > Humans cannot multitask. Anyone that says they can are
| lying or are misguided at best.
|
| I don't believe this to be axiomatically true. I don't
| believe it's an intrinsic ability, but I believe it's
| very possible for humans to task-switch at a level that
| appears like multitasking (and when you think about it,
| the only multitasking modern computers do is the
| threading that multiple CPU cores enable, when it comes
| to a single core there is only one task running at a
| time, ever).
|
| In certain situations, I've found my brain able to do
| almost fractal searches through a target space. Or at
| least to simultaneously search for the answer to more
| than one question (take the game Hangman and its
| variants, when looking at a partial word my brain is
| certainly not searching for a single letter at a time).
| Ldorigo wrote:
| Actually, Belgium has two (main) official languages so
| roughly 50% of the people present are now hearing their
| native language.
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| Don't let the special case invalidate a good heuristic.
| Tijdreiziger wrote:
| What if you use a physical (paper) dictionary? Perhaps people
| will respond to it better.
| khafra wrote:
| Need a predictive version of this that tags politicians in tweets
| expressing my stance on whatever is being debated, right before
| they use their phones on livestreams.
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| Fun fact: this is quite likely illegal to do in the EU. If it
| should or should not be legal is a different question, but my
| understanding of present day law makes this not permissible.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| Would you point out why so?
| geysersam wrote:
| Interesting, can you expand a bit on what particular laws you
| think it violates?
| a5c11 wrote:
| What exactly is illegal?
| remus wrote:
| Which law makes this illegal? Presumably the live stream is
| setup by the flemish government themselves, and they're all
| public figures acting in a public capacity. Maybe there is
| something else here, or some detail of Belgian law, but from
| the outside it doesn't seem there is much of a privacy
| argument.
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| Facial detection is processing of article 9 GDPR data which
| requires explicit consent.
| unreal37 wrote:
| There's a brand new AI law too. You'd likely need explicit
| consent of these people to have their personal data (face)
| processed by AI.
| pjc50 wrote:
| GDPR "news reporting" exemption probably applies.
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| And also think of the children!!1
| Confiks wrote:
| It's not illegal, but unlawful for data controllers to process
| such personal data without free permission. But in this case
| there's likely an exception in GDPR article 85, for "For
| processing carried out for journalistic purposes or the purpose
| of academic artistic or literary expression" [1].
|
| [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj/eng#art_85
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| That does not give that right. It just asks states to carve
| out protections for journalism. Biometric data is very
| strictly regulated by the GDPR. The exceptions are listed in
| article 9.
| unreal37 wrote:
| Oh I can use your personal private data for artistic
| expression?!?
|
| Doubtful.
| tpoacher wrote:
| This is beyond silly.
|
| You could be using your phone to factcheck something that relates
| to the ongoing discussion. Or having a side-chat with another
| member, privately expressing/requesting an opinion to provide
| context. Or to take quick notes. Or, nowadays, you might even be
| using an AI to keep a running summary of what the speaker has
| been rambling about in the last 50 minutes, translated from
| 'buzzspeak' to 'humanspeak'. All legit uses of technology, which
| enhance the politician's attention rather than detract from it.
|
| I'm not saying I'm having a hard time believing people 'could' be
| checking out 9gag instead during parliament, but unless you give
| me an AI that can detect people who are on their phone AND
| verified to be slagging off, then you're just bullying people for
| having phones and being able to use them.
|
| Also, I like how laptops are somehow exempt from this bullying
| for some magical reason.
| sureglymop wrote:
| Also, it ignores that perhaps sometimes slacking off (or
| perhaps better "taking a break") may be a good thing.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Even if they're not paying attention it's likely a "this issue
| is not a me issue, I'm gonna re-read my notes or the summary
| memo for the next me issue" situation.
|
| People don't generally slack of when a legislative body has a
| hearing. That's basically their "game day".
| HenryBemis wrote:
| Angry Birds high scores won't outscore themselves!!
| float4 wrote:
| You call it silly because you could be doing useful stuff on
| your phone. I'd go one step further and say that even if you're
| slacking off that's not necessarily a bad thing. Everybody,
| including politicians, slacks off from time to time. Be it due
| to stress, awful sleep because the neighbor's dog barked all
| night, illness, or something else. It's just human and there's
| little wrong with it as long as you do your job well most of
| the time.
| ziddoap wrote:
| You're being downvoted, but I agree with you.
|
| I obviously don't want politicians to be habitually slacking
| off, but everyone has good days and bad days. There are days
| where I spend half my time on HN instead of working (hello
| today), but I typically make up for it shortly afterwards by
| having a super productive day. The important fact is that,
| _on average_ , I'm productive and deliver on my job duties.
|
| Politicians should absolutely be held accountable, it's an
| important job, but I don't think they should be held to
| standards that we hold no one else to.
| gorlilla wrote:
| Which has me wondering if the entire point is to make the
| politicians critically aware of how absurd AI performance
| monitoring isn't as innocuous as those selling it to the
| politicians will make it out to be.
| blitzar wrote:
| > I'd go one step further and say that even if you're
| slacking off that's not necessarily a bad thing
|
| While I agree, the legislation that the politicians passed
| says the opposite it true.
| amelius wrote:
| If only we could just cut off their access to Twitter/X ...
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| I'll never tire of "good people" complaining that they can't
| censor speech enough.
| amelius wrote:
| I'd be ok with it if the speech was anonymized in some way.
|
| Remember that many forms of "free speech" are pretty
| shitty, for example ads. Also, "free speech" does not mean
| "free amplification of speech".
| baumschubser wrote:
| Angela Merkel was known to text during parliamentary sessions,
| sometimes with multiple phones, with colleagues about the
| ongoing debate.
|
| Other anecdota: Nowadays it is only part of Green Party
| folklore from the past, but to knit in political sessions was a
| common sight. What is not so silly but just stupid is
| conservative delegates watching football during a sex work
| debate (2018,
| https://twitter.com/BoehmeMarco/status/1012001444302598146). In
| German Bundestag, parliamentary rules forbid to photograph
| "personal documents" (including phones and tablets) in a way
| that the content is recognizable.
| wwweston wrote:
| > Angela Merkel was known to text during parliamentary
| sessions, sometimes with multiple phones, with colleagues
| about the ongoing debate.
|
| Legislative / collective council discussion has probably
| always had some sort of quieter back channel discussion. The
| low tech solution might be a whispered conversation, or might
| be conducted via pages/runners when decorum puts moving
| around the room out of reach.
|
| Mobile devices mean you can use technology instead of
| runners.
| lupusreal wrote:
| > _sometimes with multiple phones_
|
| Reminds me of movies where le epic haxxor starts typing on
| two keyboards at once.
|
| Anyway, if everybody's vote is a foregone conclusion and the
| debate is only for the sake of the process, I can't find
| fault with people getting bored and tuning out.
| nzach wrote:
| I agree with you, but this doesn't mean this data is useless.
|
| You could could count how many people are using their phones by
| speaker.
|
| "When Alice speaks 18% of the members use their phones for more
| than 15 minutes, but when Bob speaks the rate is 27%." could be
| a proxy to understand how important the parliament thinks the
| subject/speaker is.
| lolinder wrote:
| This project doesn't seem to collect data, it posts the photo
| from the stream to social media and tags the politician. You
| might be able to derive the data you're talking about from
| the social media posts and timestamps, but that is obviously
| not the primary purpose.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| The notion that you must have your phone away and be giving
| all your attention to a speaker is so antiquated and
| worthless.
|
| I have issues with auditory processing and attention. If you
| deliver information to me verbally in a format where I cannot
| rewind/playback, have no subtitles or text to consume
| alongside it, and demand my full attention, I will have
| objectively worse reception of whatever information you're
| communicating. The way neurotypicals demand adherence to
| these, to be blunt, ceremonies of conveyance is tiresome and
| interferes with the goals they espouse of communication.
|
| In fact I would go so far as to say a lot of the time, the
| goal is not communication at all; it is a demonstration of
| one's power and authority over others. If your goal is
| actually communication, text is better in every way. Every
| reader can read at a speed of their choosing, re-read parts
| they missed, have a speech-to-text program read it to them if
| they like, stop in the middle and tend to something time
| sensitive, what have you. A live speech allows none of this.
|
| So yes, I probably use my phone while you're talking. I
| probably have my AirPods in too, because the settings where
| they remove background noise and just give me the person
| speaking are phenomenally useful. I might even be watching or
| having my phone transcribe what you're saying, too. And if
| you're going to try and chastise me for it, fine, that's your
| prerogative, but then I'm probably starting a job search for
| a place that will appreciate my skills and not demean me for
| not being able to perform "good worker vibes" to your
| arbitrary standards.
| kelvinjps10 wrote:
| Being able to focus in a speech it's not arbitrary at all.
| LocalH wrote:
| Preventing others from using tools that help them focus
| because you are in a position of power to determine what
| "focus" looks like is exactly the point the parent
| comment was making.
|
| "Being able to focus on a speech" looks different for
| differently-abled people. Just because it doesn't look
| like focus _to you_ doesn 't mean you or anyone else
| should get to dictate the tools I or anyone else use to
| enhance our focus control.
|
| Different people have different _needs_ in order to focus
| fully on something. It reeks of entitlement to look at
| another person and decide how _they_ get to manage their
| focus.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| I think you stated this a bit better than I did, and
| certainly more concisely. It's immensely frustrating and
| exhausting to have to constantly defend myself against
| accusations of not being attentive enough, not being
| responsive enough, not "looking like I work hard" enough.
|
| If you want someone who looks and runs about like a good
| little office bee, then I'm (quite evidently) not your
| girl. That said if you want your jobs handled on-time, to
| spec and beyond, and with care and consideration for the
| end users, that's me.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| So you will find that a minority opposition person will have
| less attention than a leading person on the government side?
| fwn wrote:
| > This is beyond silly. You could be using your phone to [...]
|
| I think you think the benefit of such a tool would be to shame
| politicians for something specific, whereas the real benefit of
| such a tool would be to make decision-makers aware that
| unchecked AI video scoring and facial recognition has
| implications far beyond the obviously controllable.
|
| A nose picking score would be just as useful. But it would be
| more vulgar.
| blitzar wrote:
| This is beyond silly.
|
| You could be using your phone to to find a hooker for tonight.
| A legit uses of technology. Normally they use their iPads for
| that though.
| punnerud wrote:
| And you can use your iPad or computer to check Facebook
| blitzar wrote:
| I was actually citing a real world example ... but yes
| there is also prior art of people browsing facebook on a
| bunch of devices.
| nickdothutton wrote:
| If it is anything like the UK parliament, what goes on in the
| chamber is less important than the WhatsApp groups the UK Gov
| runs on.
| mcculley wrote:
| What I found more amusing when in meetings with government
| officials is their constant use of two phones, one officially
| issued and one personal. There is a lot more use of the personal
| phone in official meetings than there should be. They have been
| trained to do as little as possible on the phone more likely to
| be subject to a subpoena.
| pandemic_region wrote:
| Woah i like his other sideproject:
| https://driesdepoorter.be/product/shirt/ .
|
| > A shirt whose price increases by 1 Euro with every purchase.
| The price is embroidered on the shirt.
|
| Current price is 183EUR ! (EDIT means he made almost 17k EUR on
| this so far)
| bkovacev wrote:
| I really like the minimalistic design of the website, but I was
| disappointed to see Wordpress used. Does anyone know if something
| similar exists whether free or paid - as long as it's available
| as plain CSS/HTML?
| LastTrain wrote:
| A tool which simply invites superficial condemnation intending to
| anger and divide us even more than we already are. SO,
| congratulations on your negative contribution to society!
| quuxplusone wrote:
| "37% legislative efficiency? That's bad! Let me call my
| supervisor."
|
| "Hey @JanJambon, what's going on, man? You're in red!"
|
| "It's just been a rough day."
|
| "Rough day? More like a rough month."
|
| (the reference: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43180133 )
| duxup wrote:
| I agree, this whole system has the vibe of messed up metrics
| and jerk middle manager going on.
| betimsl wrote:
| Any chance open sourcing it? :)
| noelrock wrote:
| As a former politician, I really don't love this.
|
| It's already difficult enough to get people of the capacities
| that most of us want to see (good, smart, could be employed
| elsewhere, empathetic) involved in politics as it's so negative
| and divisive.
|
| There are, as other comments highlight, loads of legitimate and
| reasonable reasons why somebody would be using a phone mid-
| debate: rebuttal research, communicating with colleagues in
| chamber, communicating with their own office/staff, the list is
| fairly long and reasonably legitimate.
| itishappy wrote:
| Nobody loves this, and I suspect that's the point. I expect
| this same tech is about to be rolled out en masse to surveil
| workers everywhere (if it hasn't already been).
|
| I further suspect that by applying this to the people in charge
| of creating regulations, the artist is trying to drive new
| regulations.
| amelius wrote:
| New regulation: AI-based tagging forbidden for use on
| politicians.
| dmoy wrote:
| Is insider trading still legal for politicians? Pretty
| much, right? They just have to disclose it weeks after the
| fact?
|
| Certainly I haven't heard of any news of the STOCK act from
| 2012 actually being enforced, e.g. no insider trading
| convictions or anything.
| ImJamal wrote:
| As far as I can tell, most of the politicians aren't
| doing insider trading. They are trading on public
| knowledge (laws being introduced) but that people don't
| really pay attention to. Maybe I am wrong?
| infogulch wrote:
| Insider trading laws are formulated around prosecuting
| persons that have a contractual duty to the company that
| act on company-internal information before its published
| to stockholders. Politicians do have unpublished
| information about laws and regulations that will affect
| companies in the future, but they don't have any specific
| duty to the company, and the information is not exactly
| company-internal, so it doesn't count as insider trading
| by technical definition.
|
| I've ever seen a proposed reformulation of these laws
| that would redraw the lines clearly enough to prevent
| abuse by politicians but not impede legitimate cases.
| Maybe the best solution is to ban politicians from
| trading individual stocks, only broad market indexes /
| mutual funds.
| ImJamal wrote:
| > Maybe the best solution is to ban politicians from
| trading individual stocks, only broad market indexes /
| mutual funds.
|
| I think that still has issues. Requiring blind trusts
| seems safer.
|
| There is another problem, which is family members. If you
| ban the politician, but allow their spouse, kids, etc to
| trade freely then you didn't actual solve any problems.
| handedness wrote:
| The STOCK Act mostly only had the effect of creating some
| inconveniences for lawmakers (e.g., their families could
| still trade based on their guidance), and even that was
| only the case for a year as Senator Reid's House bill
| S.716 effectively gutted the STOCK Act and restored the
| status quo, was passed by unanimous consent after 14
| seconds of discussion, and was signed into law by
| President Obama:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#Amendment
|
| https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-
| bill/716
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| How do you think people NOT paid by the population feel about
| the idea of continuous surveillance, the potential for
| misinterpretation and huge impact on their lives? I suspect
| your discomfort and that of others in positions that create
| these types of environments is a feature, not a bug.
| CitrusFruits wrote:
| A lot of politicians are against surveillance too, they just
| get outnumbered. I think it's an unfair assumption to assume
| the parent comment is for surveillance legislation,
| especially if they're someone who frequents HN and are
| therefore more likely to be technically literate.
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| > A lot of politicians are against surveillance too, they
| just get outnumbered
|
| Well, politicians do vote and make laws.
|
| if the majority of them are for privacy, there is
| absolutely no reason for them to vote against it each time
| they are asked to.
|
| Usually a law is passed when the majority of politicians
| vote for it...
| dagw wrote:
| _if the majority of them are for privacy, there is
| absolutely no reason for them to vote against it_
|
| That's not how politics works. Most politicians belong to
| political parties, and sometimes you have to vote against
| your personal conviction and with your party, especially
| if you actually want to get stuff done long term.
| Compromising by voting with your party and against your
| convictions on one issue to ensure that you get their
| support on another issue you consider more important is
| what politics is all about.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| I'm not saying this person is FOR surveillance, I'm saying
| a visceral example of its impact - especially on those who
| make decisions around it that impact everyone - is a
| powerful piece of art. I suspect most surveillance debates
| are theoretical and making politicians feel potential
| impacts is a very valuable experience.
| Sophira wrote:
| Bear in mind that the person you're applying to is _also_ not
| paid by the population. They said "former politician".
| ryandrake wrote:
| Like it or not, "eyes glued to phone" has become a pretty clear
| indicator of distraction, and I'm fine calling this out. If I'm
| in a meeting giving a presentation, and I notice people glued
| to their phones during it, I'm not going to call them out on
| the spot, but I'll probably do something afterwards: Either 1.
| tighten up my invite list next time so as to only include
| people who really need to be there, or 2. politely ask the
| person what I could have done in my presentation to make it
| more engaging.
|
| I had a manager once who, if she would spot someone on their
| phone in a meeting, would put them on the spot and ask them a
| question relevant to what the team was just discussing. Some
| people would call that a "dick move" but I'm actually
| supportive of it. _If you 're supposed to be paying attention,
| get off your phone._
|
| I really don't like how society has just normalized whipping
| your phone out in the middle of human interactions.
| LocalH wrote:
| Some people use bits of time on their phone to ironically
| help them focus on the person they're talking to.
|
| If I have to listen to someone with zero of what people would
| call "external distractions" I'm barely going to remember any
| of it. But if I can poke on my phone while I'm listening,
| maybe look up some information relevant to the topic, then
| I'm much more engaged and retain far more of what's being
| said.
|
| There's a difference between "eyes glued to phone" and "eyes
| looking at phone occasionally and then returning to the
| room". Too often, people see the latter, and it's like
| looking at a second hand on a clock. They take the initial
| glance, it _looks_ longer than it really is, and so "eyes
| glued to phone" is their takeaway.
|
| > I had a manager once who, if she would spot someone on
| their phone in a meeting, would put them on the spot and ask
| them a question relevant to what the team was just
| discussing. Some people would call that a "dick move" but I'm
| actually supportive of it. If you're supposed to be paying
| attention, get off your phone.
|
| That manager would be flabbergasted when I answer the
| question. Unfortunately her takeaway would probably be "he
| could answer that while still not paying full attention? how
| can I make him pay full attention!" despite the fact that
| what she would call "full attention" would make my brain
| _more_ likely to drift.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| > If I have to listen to someone with zero of what people
| would call "external distractions" I'm barely going to
| remember any of it. But if I can poke on my phone while I'm
| listening, maybe look up some information relevant to the
| topic, then I'm much more engaged and retain far more of
| what's being said.
|
| This really makes no sense to me. It's well known that
| human cannot multitask beyond system 1 / system 2 in
| parallel, so you must be much better at micro time-sharing
| than pretty much everybody.
| exe34 wrote:
| > It's well known that human
|
| That's your problem there. Most of these soundbites come
| from studies that would have listed an enormous amount of
| limitations and had further limitations that weren't
| explicitly listed. It is common for people with certain
| conditions to be excluded from studies.
|
| I don't personally identify with the GP, but I certainly
| remember more if I have a mental picture to hang the
| facts on - sometimes this might involve looking up a
| circuit diagram, a map, or an equation. It doesn't mean
| I'm not paying attention, but it means I'm scrambling to
| find a peg to hang that information on before it slips
| out of my mind. I might also be jotting down some notes
| for asking later - presumably you wouldn't express the
| same incredulity towards somebody using pen and paper
| instead?
| etskinner wrote:
| Consider a similar tasks that are practiced by thousands
| of professionals daily: Live translation, flying a plane
| while talking to ATC, playing music while talking. Some
| people find these things nearly impossible, but with
| enough practice it's definitely possible.
| LocalH wrote:
| Modern computers do far less _actual_ multitasking than
| most users realize. Yet we still call it "multitasking".
| Sufficiently fine-grained task switching is
| indistinguishable from actual multitasking. Also, is it
| really even task switching if I'm concurrently reviewing
| information directly related to the discussion topic?
|
| If you were in a position of managerial power over me,
| and you saw me doing this very thing to maximize my
| engagement with the topic and task at hand, what would
| your response be? Would you "make me put my phone away"?
| Would you cause a distraction by interrupting the
| discussion to focus on my focus management tools?
| rhyperior wrote:
| No, it's the equivalent of doodling while having a
| meeting. It engages a different part of the brain.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| I see your point, but many times people use their phone to
| look up data. It's where I keep many documents.
|
| Would you be happier if they were reading some piece of paper
| in front of them? That looks very official and serious, but
| their brain could be drifting away to anywhere else.
| serviceberry wrote:
| > Like it or not, "eyes glued to phone" has become a pretty
| clear indicator of distraction, and I'm fine calling this
| out.
|
| This is not like work meetings: 99% of meaningful policy work
| is happening behind closed doors. The publicly-televised
| sessions is where people give speeches for the cameras and
| then cast votes with (typically) pre-negotiated outcomes. So,
| I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to be upset if
| someone is browsing Reddit while an opposition politician is
| saying their piece.
| nico wrote:
| > If I'm in a meeting giving a presentation, and I notice
| people glued to their phones during it, I'm not going to call
| them out on the spot, but I'll probably do something
| afterwards
|
| A tip from the book The Charisma Myth: when you notice
| someone on their phone, just pause what you were saying, the
| sudden silence usually brings people back. If you also look
| at them when pausing, it will be very clear what's going on
| without you even saying a word
|
| This works both during presentations and conversations
| pests wrote:
| I have a friend who this does not work on. In his worse
| moments he will continue on his phone like nothing happened
| and not even bring it back up later / forget that we were
| even talking about something if I were to bring it up
| later. Super annoying.
| NickC25 wrote:
| >I had a manager once who, if she would spot someone on their
| phone in a meeting, would put them on the spot and ask them a
| question relevant to what the team was just discussing. Some
| people would call that a "dick move" but I'm actually
| supportive of it. If you're supposed to be paying attention,
| get off your phone.
|
| Fully get it, and that manager was quite right to do what
| they did. I occasionally bring my phone to meetings, but it's
| because I run a company and sometimes I'll have interesting
| data that might be relevant at a given point in a discussion.
| It's more to help move the meeting or conversation along in a
| helpful manner. I generally bring pre-meeting notes in
| digital format, and then a pen/paper to actually take
| physical notes when I'm talking to people. People generally
| don't find it rude if I look down to write something
| important down versus looking at a hpone.
|
| I'd like to be able to do this as well, but I might get
| pushback as most of the people I meet with are significantly
| younger than me (I'm 35 and do sales to health/wellness
| establishments, most of the time I'm dealing with
| 20-somethings).
|
| >I really don't like how society has just normalized whipping
| your phone out in the middle of human interactions.
|
| Agree 100%, however, in the context of biz meetings, there
| could be reasons for it. Perhaps I'm hard of hearing and want
| to record the conversation, for note-taking purposes, or
| perhaps, there's an interesting data point I might have in my
| digital notes that might back you up even more in a meeting.
| I'm just playing devil's advocate in a situation that is
| quite realistic. I personally hate when people are on their
| phones in meetings or otherwise important interactions.
| plagiarist wrote:
| No need to worry, politicians will make it illegal to monitor
| politicians in this way. Only workers will ever need to deal
| with always-on surveillance like this.
| rpmisms wrote:
| Since you're on HN, I'll assume you're pretty cool, but most
| people take what politicians like as an inverse signal. If they
| don't like it, it's probably good.
| noelrock wrote:
| Yeah, I weighed up the possibility that people would perceive
| it that way. That also speaks to the negative perception of
| politics/politicians too of course...
| rpmisms wrote:
| Well, when most of your job is perception, this is part of
| the job.
| Sophira wrote:
| They said "former politician", though. Also, this is a form
| of surveillance - I think most people on HN would be against
| that as well.
| mmooss wrote:
| Honestly, how much such of hearings, etc. are a waste of time,
| and you could better serve your constituents and
| country/community by doing some work? Do you have time to pay
| full attention in all these situations?
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| It feels like a lot of people are interpreting this as a cheap
| attempt to drum up populist angst for "lazy politicians". That's
| one obvious take-away, and it's legitimate. I see that it's
| generating a strong emotional response: discomfort with the idea
| of being monitored; fear that the data is misinterpreted. I see
| this as very powerful, because a lot of the "nicer" government
| orders, such as those in Western Europe, are also the most
| aggressive surveillance states. I like that the artist has come
| up with a way to drive home the potential impact of the decisions
| that may be debated and decided in this very chamber. It has a
| nice symmetry, and I see that as cool art.
| Frederation wrote:
| Dumb
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-06 23:02 UTC)