3 ms·

I now view this outcome as inevitable. Such systems are already being trialled on the streets of london. However our privacy is not just about face recog - we l

I now view this outcome as inevitable. Such systems are already being trialled on the streets of london. However our privacy is not just about face recog - we leave myriad digital traces thousands of times a day (payments, phone, search, maps, likes, car plates, emails, phone calls, store cameras) which can already be used to trace out our lives in excruciating detail. Just one of these factors gives a lot of colour; together they deliver a very detailed profile of every facet of our lives. Who has this power? At the moment only lawless spy agencies and politicians who control them. It may be better to legislate for all this data to be open to all rather than trying to legislate it out of existence. Laws likely won't work due to power imbalances meaning it is used by the state with impunity anyway, as is the case at least to a limited extent now - the limits on the likes of GCHQ are technical, not legal, as they have demonstrated recently. Perhaps a truly private life is now impossible, but if it is we should make sure that is the case for those in power as well as the little people who scurry about beneath their gaze.

Mirioron 8y ago
>Who has this power? At the moment only lawless spy agencies and politicians who control them. And all of the people working in these institutions. We know that they are willing to blatantly abuse these surveillance systems for personal stuff and they get away with it.
fwip 8y ago
> It may be better to legislate for all this data to be open to all rather than trying to legislate it out of existence. I can't imagine that it would be better for every person on the planet to have access to my face scans at my apartment than just my landlord.
- jjoonathan 8y ago
  Surveillance will always be subject to authority-flavored selective availability and interpretation unless the collected information is freely available to all legitimately interested parties. This has only ever directly affected me once, in a stupid argument with my apartment administration over a $250 fire exit sign, but it was enough to make me aware of how much power the person holding the footage has. Extrapolating to victims with less soft power and more at stake is not a comforting proposition.
  - pixl97 8y ago
    > unless the collected information is freely available to all legitimately interested parties. Unfortunately abusive parties will be the ones most interested in collecting your data in the first place.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  Complete transparency for everything is better than only some entities having all the power. Obviously, we’re not going to be able to achieve privacy, so the only other option is to have everything be transparent.
amenod 8y ago
Actually, this outcome is far from inevitable - it all depends on the society and the political will. The problem with loss of privacy is that it can influence the voting body, and thus political outcomes. In the arms of power-that-be, it is not difficult to imagine an outcome where this technology is used to protect the ruling party from losing their power. In other words: 1984. I like to think that this is the reason behind EU's GDPR and other privacy initiatives. Ironically, I think people of continental EU remember better what the loss of privacy meant in WWII, much more so than the rest of the world. It is telling that England (while it certainly had lots of casualties) was not invaded, so maybe this is why they put up with all the cameras? It certainly is not a place I would want to live in, or near. It creeps me out.
- grey-area 8y ago
  It’s already here, just exclusively in the hands of the state at present.
BurningFrog 8y ago
You're missing that regular people will also soon be recording everything around their persons, homes and vehicles. Cameras cost nothing already and will be deployed everywhere, all the time.
- grey-area 8y ago
  Doesn't that make it preferable to give access to all? The other alternative means those who can access to all that footage in aggregate have huge power over those who only have access to a few cameras.
  - BurningFrog 8y ago
    Everyone should have access to all my personal cameras?

Mirioron 8y ago

>Who has this power? At the moment only lawless spy agencies and politicians who control them. And all of the people working in these institutions. We know that they are willing to blatantly abuse these surveillance systems for personal stuff and they get away with it.

fwip 8y ago

> It may be better to legislate for all this data to be open to all rather than trying to legislate it out of existence. I can't imagine that it would be better for every person on the planet to have access to my face scans at my apartment than just my landlord.

jjoonathan 8y ago
Surveillance will always be subject to authority-flavored selective availability and interpretation unless the collected information is freely available to all legitimately interested parties. This has only ever directly affected me once, in a stupid argument with my apartment administration over a $250 fire exit sign, but it was enough to make me aware of how much power the person holding the footage has. Extrapolating to victims with less soft power and more at stake is not a comforting proposition.
- pixl97 8y ago
  > unless the collected information is freely available to all legitimately interested parties. Unfortunately abusive parties will be the ones most interested in collecting your data in the first place.
lotsofpulp 8y ago
Complete transparency for everything is better than only some entities having all the power. Obviously, we’re not going to be able to achieve privacy, so the only other option is to have everything be transparent.

amenod 8y ago

Actually, this outcome is far from inevitable - it all depends on the society and the political will. The problem with loss of privacy is that it can influence the voting body, and thus political outcomes. In the arms of power-that-be, it is not difficult to imagine an outcome where this technology is used to protect the ruling party from losing their power. In other words: 1984. I like to think that this is the reason behind EU's GDPR and other privacy initiatives. Ironically, I think people of continental EU remember better what the loss of privacy meant in WWII, much more so than the rest of the world. It is telling that England (while it certainly had lots of casualties) was not invaded, so maybe this is why they put up with all the cameras? It certainly is not a place I would want to live in, or near. It creeps me out.

grey-area 8y ago
It’s already here, just exclusively in the hands of the state at present.

BurningFrog 8y ago

You're missing that regular people will also soon be recording everything around their persons, homes and vehicles. Cameras cost nothing already and will be deployed everywhere, all the time.

grey-area 8y ago
Doesn't that make it preferable to give access to all? The other alternative means those who can access to all that footage in aggregate have huge power over those who only have access to a few cameras.
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  Everyone should have access to all my personal cameras?