7 ms·
You've got all the rights in the world to walk by my house on the sidewalk and doing so an unlimited number of times will raise no suspicion from me. The minut
by lozaning 8y ago
You've got all the rights in the world to walk by my house on the sidewalk and doing so an unlimited number of times will raise no suspicion from me.
The minute you cross onto my property you're going to show up on multiple cameras that are pointed right at the boundary line. You rights to do whatever you want stop when you cross that line.
I dont think you could convince me that this makes you any less safe.
- snowwrestler 8y agoIt seems impossible to point cameras face high at a property line, but not capture images from beyond the property line. If you have a sidewalk in front of your yard, the difference between being on your property or not is like a foot. You're going to capture every single person who walks by. That's obviously fine for you, the property owner, camera operator, and a very reasonable person. But, imagine every house working that way as you walk around your neighborhood. Is everyone as reasonable as you?
- JohnFen 8y ago"I dont think you could convince me that this makes you any less safe." I'm not trying to, because when it comes to my own security, what you think is or is not safe isn't relevant. Just as what I think isn't relevant to yours.
- lambdadmitry 8y agoWhat kind of hellish warzone do you live in with that kind of mentality (or even the need to have multiple cameras pointed somewhere)?
- lozaning 8y agoI travel out of the country for multiple weeks at a time for work, and want to ensure that all my worldly possessions are secure. Im working for full 100% coverage of the entirety of my house, inside and out. The goal being able to control my smart house via gestures anywhere I am on the property via some machine learning and computer vision. Also WYZE cams are 20 bucks a pop, and easily reflashed to do you own bidding. So it's not like this is some super expensive undertaking.
- JohnFen 8y agoAll the surveillance in the world won't keep your stuff from being stolen. At best, it might allow the thief to be apprehended later -- but you probably still won't be getting your stuff back. By the way, I have had my home pretty thoroughly automated for about 20 years now. I do recommend that (as long as you aren't using third party services -- that's a security risk all by itself). It's a lot of fun, not incredibly expensive, and pretty useful.
- someguydave 8y ago>All the surveillance in the world won't keep your stuff from being stolen. Maybe not but if the thieves are recognized automatically the police have a much better chance at recovery.
- lambdadmitry 8y agoSo basically there are two possibilities here: - put pervasive face recog databases on the big majority of the US population in hands of huge multinational companies (because America) so an opulent Joe The Programmer can feel a little extra safety over his stuff, because Those Scary Plebs can steal their Juicero juicer - work on societal problems, reduce the inequality to reduce the risk of robbing and accept whatever risk is left because the societal cost of pervasive corp surveillance is just too high The fact that sizable number of people feel that the former in any way preferable is pretty damning.
- someguydave 8y agoI think this is a false dilemma. It could be that social problems have no solution, and yet also the poor and downtrodden benefit when the rule of law is upheld.