3 ms·

I think the question is how the character of the surveillance changes when technology allows it to be done at larger scales with longer retention and more data

by repiret 11y ago

I think the question is how the character of the surveillance changes when technology allows it to be done at larger scales with longer retention and more data mining. I think this a central question in modern privacy policy. You could argue that since its appropriate for the cops in a patrol car to look around, and cite someone they see jaywalking, it would be appropriate to install 360° high resolution cameras, to programmatically analyze the footage to cite everyone for jaywalking and other similarly trivial offenses, and to retain the footage indefinitely. Or you could argue that the aggregation and automation changes things. It has taken society centuries to come to the notions of privacy and public rights against the state that we have today. If the aggregation, retention and analysis enabled by technology changes things, as I think they do, and I think many of us here think they do, then we as a society have our work cut out for us to update our notions of privacy.

cpncrunch 11y ago
Something like this is happening in Surrey, BC. They are in the process of installing 400 traffic cameras purely to stop crime, and the police will have 24 hour access to all cameras. Pretty much everyone is in favour of this, as they are fed up with the almost daily shootings. The people in Surrey had to make a decision as to whether they prefer living in a crime-ridden shithole, or if they prefer 24-hour surveillance. They chose the surveillance.
- cpncrunch 11y ago
  It's interesting that my purely factual example got downvoted. Presumably because the facts of the situation in Surrey doesn't fit with some poeople's worldview? The reality is that most people are happy with some level of surveillance if it is done to reduce crime. There seems to be an automatic presumption by some people on HN (which appears to be a majority of HN users, based on upvotes/downvotes) that the US government is like some kind of Stasi police state. The reality is that there is always pushback when the government oversteps its bounds. Some examples: investigations into torture by the CIA, the FBI now getting warrants for Stingray operations, the Snowden fallout, etc. I guess it's good that there is a strong libertarian contingent in the USA, which helps keep your government in check.

by repiret 11y ago

cpncrunch 11y ago

Something like this is happening in Surrey, BC. They are in the process of installing 400 traffic cameras purely to stop crime, and the police will have 24 hour access to all cameras. Pretty much everyone is in favour of this, as they are fed up with the almost daily shootings. The people in Surrey had to make a decision as to whether they prefer living in a crime-ridden shithole, or if they prefer 24-hour surveillance. They chose the surveillance.

cpncrunch 11y ago
It's interesting that my purely factual example got downvoted. Presumably because the facts of the situation in Surrey doesn't fit with some poeople's worldview? The reality is that most people are happy with some level of surveillance if it is done to reduce crime. There seems to be an automatic presumption by some people on HN (which appears to be a majority of HN users, based on upvotes/downvotes) that the US government is like some kind of Stasi police state. The reality is that there is always pushback when the government oversteps its bounds. Some examples: investigations into torture by the CIA, the FBI now getting warrants for Stingray operations, the Snowden fallout, etc. I guess it's good that there is a strong libertarian contingent in the USA, which helps keep your government in check.