4 ms·

This video confirms so many of my concerns about surveillance. The problem, of course, is that nothing i just watched received any sort of rigor. Despite knowi

This video confirms so many of my concerns about surveillance. The problem, of course, is that nothing i just watched received any sort of rigor. Despite knowing no identities, and confirming nothing about the vehicles in question, an entire narrative is presented without any shred of evidence. For all we know, this "drug deal" may well have been a carpet cleaner with inconvenient timing who can expect to have his house raided next week. In fact, let me take that a step further. What evidence do i have that this was even a murder? I'll assume in this case it is, but can i independently confirm that? Of course not. Worse still is the logical skip: "well now that i have shown you this, here are some colorful lines demonstrating a ton of other related behavior that you should totally extrapolate nefarious connections from." The scope of narratives that can be taken out of context, or outright invented using these videos is terrifying. Power indeed.

Retra 10y ago
They found a body with a bullet in it's head. That's step one. Step two, they went to these recordings, looked where they found that body, and they tracked all the people who were there when the murder happened. >an entire narrative is presented without any shred of evidence Why should it? It's not trying to convince you a murder took place. That's already an established fact. It's trying to show you the technology. Nothing here would have been able to predict a crime. Someone driving around the block twice before driving across town might just be a driver whose car is making a funny sound when he turns left, so he's investigating it. That means nothing. Unless you've got a bloody corpse laying in the alley he's driving past. Then it means a whole lot.
- MichaelMoser123 10y ago
  > They found a body with a bullet in it's head. That's step one. i am not much of an expert, but for a start they would need the exact time of the murder - without this fact all these little dots that move around the screen don't make a lot of sense.
  - ctdonath 10y ago
    Forensics is good enough to narrow the time down enough to get a good start.
- duncan_bayne 10y ago
  Until an AI monitoring the video dispatches the police to intercept you, because it's decided that behaviour like that is associated with subsequent criminal activity.
  - Retra 10y ago
    I'm sure the police have the time and resources to spend their days running all over town chasing down false positives and arresting people for driving in circles.
- vidarh 10y ago
  > Then it means a whole lot. Assuming he saw it. Part of the problem with this is that you are looking at a scene with additional knowledge which the people present may or may not also have had, and you're looking at it from a vastly different angle. If these things makes it to court, expect a lot of challenges on the basis of those kind of things. If it's used merely as a starting point for "real police work" then that may be ok. But consider e.g. the policy of extrajudicial assassinations of suspected drug dealers for money in the Philippines[1], where a system like this would potentially allow police officers to "justify" their decisions far faster (and there's a lot of people with money in that) by playing fast and easy with what "looks like" a drug deal. Or consider that the US has a government that considers extrajudicial killings of terror suspects by drone acceptable. How long until systems like the above play into providing "evidence" into those kind of decisions - we already know they don't have a problem with rather substantial collateral damage. This kind of technology does have a lot of potential for good. But it also has a lot of potential for supporting authoritarianism and for aiding state terror. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-37172002 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-37172002

Retra 10y ago

They found a body with a bullet in it's head. That's step one. Step two, they went to these recordings, looked where they found that body, and they tracked all the people who were there when the murder happened. >an entire narrative is presented without any shred of evidence Why should it? It's not trying to convince you a murder took place. That's already an established fact. It's trying to show you the technology. Nothing here would have been able to predict a crime. Someone driving around the block twice before driving across town might just be a driver whose car is making a funny sound when he turns left, so he's investigating it. That means nothing. Unless you've got a bloody corpse laying in the alley he's driving past. Then it means a whole lot.

MichaelMoser123 10y ago
> They found a body with a bullet in it's head. That's step one. i am not much of an expert, but for a start they would need the exact time of the murder - without this fact all these little dots that move around the screen don't make a lot of sense.
- ctdonath 10y ago
  Forensics is good enough to narrow the time down enough to get a good start.
duncan_bayne 10y ago
Until an AI monitoring the video dispatches the police to intercept you, because it's decided that behaviour like that is associated with subsequent criminal activity.
- Retra 10y ago
  I'm sure the police have the time and resources to spend their days running all over town chasing down false positives and arresting people for driving in circles.
vidarh 10y ago
> Then it means a whole lot. Assuming he saw it. Part of the problem with this is that you are looking at a scene with additional knowledge which the people present may or may not also have had, and you're looking at it from a vastly different angle. If these things makes it to court, expect a lot of challenges on the basis of those kind of things. If it's used merely as a starting point for "real police work" then that may be ok. But consider e.g. the policy of extrajudicial assassinations of suspected drug dealers for money in the Philippines[1], where a system like this would potentially allow police officers to "justify" their decisions far faster (and there's a lot of people with money in that) by playing fast and easy with what "looks like" a drug deal. Or consider that the US has a government that considers extrajudicial killings of terror suspects by drone acceptable. How long until systems like the above play into providing "evidence" into those kind of decisions - we already know they don't have a problem with rather substantial collateral damage. This kind of technology does have a lot of potential for good. But it also has a lot of potential for supporting authoritarianism and for aiding state terror. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-37172002 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-37172002