4 ms·

What 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 ago
I 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 ago
  All 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 ago
      So 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 ago
        I 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.

lozaning 8y ago

I 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 ago
All 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 ago
    So 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 ago
      I 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.