3 ms·

I can see how members of some communities might feel like the technology opens them up to more scrutiny than they probably deserve from an overzealous do-gooder

• laumars 8y ago
  Like I said, I agree it’s a valid concern. My point was that for this kind of tech to be useful, it wouldn’t want to be that zealous with alerting otherwise the system would get flooded with false positives. That means door to door sales people, preachers, the postman, milk man, kids at Halloween, carol singers, etc. Given this is an automatic sensor, people would just quickly just ignore it without even checking the footage - this even before any racial or social prejudices had chance to kick in. We see this all the time with software monitoring solutions in IT what sysadmins ignore if they are too sensitive so my comment here isn’t without precedence either. But essentially we are both arguing that an overly sensitive alarm is a bad thing - just from different perspectives. You make the point about discrimination and I make the point about the alerting being worthless in a sea of ignored alarms. Ultimately we’re both skeptical
  • dvtrn 8y ago
    But essentially we are both arguing that an overly sensitive alarm is a bad thing You might be. I'm not. I never once said it's a bad thing, or described it as overly sensitive, to be fair. Just that I could see how certain communities might look at the technology and what it enables and have good reason to be incredulous about how certain neighborhood actors will use it. That's about a nuanced as I can possibly get on the topic without trying to argue in favor or against these devices in full, or taking any absolute position.