4 ms·

Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you? The trade-off between the convenience of having an always-on camera and living in a society in which every

Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you? The trade-off between the convenience of having an always-on camera and living in a society in which everyone has an always-on cameras seems like a no-brainer to me. There's even a Black Mirror episode like that - "The Entire History of You".

naasking 9y ago
> Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you? If the camera had a light indicating when it was actually recording, that seems better. There are probably many small changes to make such cameras more acceptable.
- oarsinsync 9y ago
  Google for “activate webcam without light” Ever noticed people have covered their laptop cameras even though they have a light to indicate if it’s on? How do you do that to someone else’s camera that has been remote activated with the light disabled?
  - naasking 9y ago
    You don't make it software controlled, you hardwire it so it can't be hacked.
gpm 9y ago
That camera is already pointed at me, via security cameras, strangers cell phones, etc. This just makes the situation symmetric. So yes, I would be fine with that.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  No all of us live in the UK or some city that has cameras everywhere. Private CCTV footage and most government footage not part of a dragnet collection program is usually discarded after a few weeks or months if it's not needed. Cell phones are not always on. I agree that everything being recorded all the time is somewhat inevitable considering the way things are going. While this does make the situation symmetric to some extent as far as the capacity to record interesting things goes. However, I believe that in the foreseeable future the negatives outweigh the positives. You might be able to get the clerk at the DMV to be nicer if they're on camera but your ability to influence society with the ability to record video doesn't extend much beyond there. Only the incumbents (tech giants and the government) have the ability to store and mine this sort of data for interesting things that are only interesting in retrospect. You do not have access to a big chunk of the data set. Your bank, insurance company and government do. They can mine that data to punish you or others for whatever behavior they deem bad and to extract compliance to their whims. You, neither as a individual nor as part of a group do not have the capacity to do the same analysis, the means to use what you learn to manipulate individuals. Even if you did you don't have access to a large enough chunk of the data set. Until the power to access and draw meaning from this sort of data is in everyone's hands the situation is not symmetric. I hope you and those who agree with you reconsider your opinions.
  - gpm 9y ago
    The proposal wasn't dragnet surveillance. It was everyone walking around with a rolling 30-second video buffer that they can chose to save. There is no giant record for someone to datamine. Not living in the UK doesn't change much, it goes from "in public I'm always possibly on camera" to "in public I'm always possibly on camera" everywhere, not just the Uk. My ability to influence society with a camera is far beyond "the DMV clerk being nicer". It's being able to hold the cop who pulls me over accountable. Being able to get video of the van that hit a parked car and sped off. Being able to submit proof that the person I saw trying to open the doors on a bunch of parked cars was actually trying to do that. The second two are real examples that have happened to me within the last 6 months, the first one is a real example that you can easily see the utility of via verifiable stories on the internet. And even if you think my ability to influence society is minimal with it, that's fine, ability to influence society wasn't why people above were asking for it.
    - PJDK 9y ago
      I think one of the reasons people don't like the idea is this very reason. It's coming from the position "someone is likely to do me wrong and I will be collecting evidence with that in mind". That in itself is a pretty aggressive position to take - but once you interact with someone it then says "_you_ are likely to do me wrong".
      - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        I think whether that position is reasonable depends on whether you see people as trustworthy by default or not. Most people would not have a problem having every minute of their workday recorded if their job was handling gold bars or diamonds or something really high stakes. Having even the most trivial interactions between people subject to a recording is inappropriate overkill if you believe people to be trustworthy. It's like requiring a notarized bill of sale for a used laptop. If you believe people to be untrustworthy by default then you would consider everyone having the ability to discreetly record any interaction with anyone else to be a net positive.
      - 9y ago
konart 9y ago
>Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you? I'm pretty sure humanity is already past the point where this question is timely. We have many cameras watching us all day long and ten years from now there will be even more. For what it's worth, maybe this will finally teach people to thing before they act.
- throwaway2048 9y ago
  This is a common tactic in normalizing stuff people are uncomfortable with "its already been that way for X years why are you complaining now". Besides the fact this statement is inaccurate (there are not infact security cameras everywhere, footage is not centralized and analyized by huge powerful parties), It in no way somehow justifies the situation as it stands, or will stand if these become popular.
  - konart 9y ago
    >there are not infact security cameras everywhere, footage is not centralized and analyized by huge powerful parties http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-42248056/in-your-face-china-s-all-seeing-state http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-42248056/in-your... You just wait. >there are not infact security cameras everywhere Well, depending on where you live of course. You won't find a single one in Somali most likely. Anyway, as I've already said - I'm not trying to justify anything.
- maltalex 9y ago
  > I'm pretty sure humanity is already past the point where this question is timely. We have many cameras watching us all day long and ten years from now there will be even more. Really? Do you have cameras looking at you all day at work? Or at home, while interacting with your family? I hope not. I also hope that you'd object to any attempts to put such a device. It's true that society by and large accepts CCTV cameras in public places. But that's not the same as equipping everyone with an always-on camera and having every human interaction recorded. That's just dystopian. > For what it's worth, maybe this will finally teach people to thing before they act. That's the oldest argument in the book. And sure, it's true. If you point a camera at people, they will behave "better". But that's insane, that's like saying that since children are most likely to be abused at home, then we should outlaw parenting, and have the state raise all kids using only state-certified™ personnel. Sure, that might work, but it kinda seems like we're losing something important along the way, no? Having everyone "act better" is a good cause. But surveillance comes at a huge social cost, not to mention the potential for abuse by the watchers or those who decide what "better" is. Your "act better" might be a long way off the government's idea of how it would like citizens to behave.
shpx 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society

naasking 9y ago

> Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you? If the camera had a light indicating when it was actually recording, that seems better. There are probably many small changes to make such cameras more acceptable.

oarsinsync 9y ago
Google for “activate webcam without light” Ever noticed people have covered their laptop cameras even though they have a light to indicate if it’s on? How do you do that to someone else’s camera that has been remote activated with the light disabled?
- naasking 9y ago
  You don't make it software controlled, you hardwire it so it can't be hacked.

gpm 9y ago

That camera is already pointed at me, via security cameras, strangers cell phones, etc. This just makes the situation symmetric. So yes, I would be fine with that.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
No all of us live in the UK or some city that has cameras everywhere. Private CCTV footage and most government footage not part of a dragnet collection program is usually discarded after a few weeks or months if it's not needed. Cell phones are not always on. I agree that everything being recorded all the time is somewhat inevitable considering the way things are going. While this does make the situation symmetric to some extent as far as the capacity to record interesting things goes. However, I believe that in the foreseeable future the negatives outweigh the positives. You might be able to get the clerk at the DMV to be nicer if they're on camera but your ability to influence society with the ability to record video doesn't extend much beyond there. Only the incumbents (tech giants and the government) have the ability to store and mine this sort of data for interesting things that are only interesting in retrospect. You do not have access to a big chunk of the data set. Your bank, insurance company and government do. They can mine that data to punish you or others for whatever behavior they deem bad and to extract compliance to their whims. You, neither as a individual nor as part of a group do not have the capacity to do the same analysis, the means to use what you learn to manipulate individuals. Even if you did you don't have access to a large enough chunk of the data set. Until the power to access and draw meaning from this sort of data is in everyone's hands the situation is not symmetric. I hope you and those who agree with you reconsider your opinions.
- gpm 9y ago
  The proposal wasn't dragnet surveillance. It was everyone walking around with a rolling 30-second video buffer that they can chose to save. There is no giant record for someone to datamine. Not living in the UK doesn't change much, it goes from "in public I'm always possibly on camera" to "in public I'm always possibly on camera" everywhere, not just the Uk. My ability to influence society with a camera is far beyond "the DMV clerk being nicer". It's being able to hold the cop who pulls me over accountable. Being able to get video of the van that hit a parked car and sped off. Being able to submit proof that the person I saw trying to open the doors on a bunch of parked cars was actually trying to do that. The second two are real examples that have happened to me within the last 6 months, the first one is a real example that you can easily see the utility of via verifiable stories on the internet. And even if you think my ability to influence society is minimal with it, that's fine, ability to influence society wasn't why people above were asking for it.
  - PJDK 9y ago
    I think one of the reasons people don't like the idea is this very reason. It's coming from the position "someone is likely to do me wrong and I will be collecting evidence with that in mind". That in itself is a pretty aggressive position to take - but once you interact with someone it then says "_you_ are likely to do me wrong".
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      I think whether that position is reasonable depends on whether you see people as trustworthy by default or not. Most people would not have a problem having every minute of their workday recorded if their job was handling gold bars or diamonds or something really high stakes. Having even the most trivial interactions between people subject to a recording is inappropriate overkill if you believe people to be trustworthy. It's like requiring a notarized bill of sale for a used laptop. If you believe people to be untrustworthy by default then you would consider everyone having the ability to discreetly record any interaction with anyone else to be a net positive.
    - 9y ago

konart 9y ago

>Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you? I'm pretty sure humanity is already past the point where this question is timely. We have many cameras watching us all day long and ten years from now there will be even more. For what it's worth, maybe this will finally teach people to thing before they act.

throwaway2048 9y ago
This is a common tactic in normalizing stuff people are uncomfortable with "its already been that way for X years why are you complaining now". Besides the fact this statement is inaccurate (there are not infact security cameras everywhere, footage is not centralized and analyized by huge powerful parties), It in no way somehow justifies the situation as it stands, or will stand if these become popular.
- konart 9y ago
  >there are not infact security cameras everywhere, footage is not centralized and analyized by huge powerful parties http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-42248056/in-your-face-china-s-all-seeing-state http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-42248056/in-your... You just wait. >there are not infact security cameras everywhere Well, depending on where you live of course. You won't find a single one in Somali most likely. Anyway, as I've already said - I'm not trying to justify anything.
maltalex 9y ago
> I'm pretty sure humanity is already past the point where this question is timely. We have many cameras watching us all day long and ten years from now there will be even more. Really? Do you have cameras looking at you all day at work? Or at home, while interacting with your family? I hope not. I also hope that you'd object to any attempts to put such a device. It's true that society by and large accepts CCTV cameras in public places. But that's not the same as equipping everyone with an always-on camera and having every human interaction recorded. That's just dystopian. > For what it's worth, maybe this will finally teach people to thing before they act. That's the oldest argument in the book. And sure, it's true. If you point a camera at people, they will behave "better". But that's insane, that's like saying that since children are most likely to be abused at home, then we should outlaw parenting, and have the state raise all kids using only state-certified™ personnel. Sure, that might work, but it kinda seems like we're losing something important along the way, no? Having everyone "act better" is a good cause. But surveillance comes at a huge social cost, not to mention the potential for abuse by the watchers or those who decide what "better" is. Your "act better" might be a long way off the government's idea of how it would like citizens to behave.

shpx 9y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society