3 ms·

Sure, there are other, strange people on board. It would be uncomfortable if one of them positioned their face right in front of mine and stared at me, listenin

Sure, there are other, strange people on board. It would be uncomfortable if one of them positioned their face right in front of mine and stared at me, listening, the entire flight. The camera would bother me likewise.

Someone1234 8y ago
Even if they blocked the camera then the argument would shift to the microphone which may still work even if physically blocked. Plus you're contrasting the invasion of personal space, with the perception that a non-privacy space is now non-privacy. But since the space was never private to being with has anything changed or has the airline just ruined your own fiction about the space?
mindslight 8y ago
I think the divide comes down to people's priors on whether a technological device will necessarily be abused. It's easy to write off a device as only possibly enabling something "bad", and hold off assigning blame to whomever actually does the bad thing. Or you can look at the incentives, history, and accountability of such devices being abused, and infer that the implications are completely likely. In the best case, an amateur breaks into this network simply to spy on people and masturbate (either on the ground, or in the bathroom). Not necessarily personally harmful, but most people would consider this creepy. A more chilling possibility is that the cameras end up being used to test some face-tension profiling system, in the name of security theater. And the airlines are prohibited and indemnified from disclosing this to the public. Note I am not saying that they were purchased/installed for this reason, but merely that having them installed and sitting around makes them an attractive nuisance! At any rate, especially as technologists, we're past the point of being able to write off the abilities of hardware devices because of some imagined idea that the software isn't setup to do that. Especially on less important devices that are more likely to fall by the wayside!

Someone1234 8y ago

Even if they blocked the camera then the argument would shift to the microphone which may still work even if physically blocked. Plus you're contrasting the invasion of personal space, with the perception that a non-privacy space is now non-privacy. But since the space was never private to being with has anything changed or has the airline just ruined your own fiction about the space?

mindslight 8y ago

I think the divide comes down to people's priors on whether a technological device will necessarily be abused. It's easy to write off a device as only possibly enabling something "bad", and hold off assigning blame to whomever actually does the bad thing. Or you can look at the incentives, history, and accountability of such devices being abused, and infer that the implications are completely likely. In the best case, an amateur breaks into this network simply to spy on people and masturbate (either on the ground, or in the bathroom). Not necessarily personally harmful, but most people would consider this creepy. A more chilling possibility is that the cameras end up being used to test some face-tension profiling system, in the name of security theater. And the airlines are prohibited and indemnified from disclosing this to the public. Note I am not saying that they were purchased/installed for this reason, but merely that having them installed and sitting around makes them an attractive nuisance! At any rate, especially as technologists, we're past the point of being able to write off the abilities of hardware devices because of some imagined idea that the software isn't setup to do that. Especially on less important devices that are more likely to fall by the wayside!