5 ms·

No one actually watches the video, unless something happens. And this is an elementary classroom- resolution of petty squabbles means 28 kids don't get to lear

No one actually watches the video, unless something happens. And this is an elementary classroom- resolution of petty squabbles means 28 kids don't get to learn while 2 others yell 'he did it first'. They can be beasts to each other at recess.

everdrive 7y ago
If it helps, this is a very realistic portrayal of how privacy is degraded over time. Invading privacy has all sorts of practical applications. You can fight crime more effectively, and measure trends, and generally be more effective at all sorts of capitalism and statecraft. But, problems, and risks just pile up over time. Just think of what we could do for just one small sacrifice!
- panzagl 7y ago
  But what privacy is there in a classroom? Theoretically the teacher could capture the same information by being more observant.
  - everdrive 7y ago
    A wise teacher can offer a bit more dignity by choosing what they notice and draw attention to, or not.
    - skybrian 7y ago
      Perhaps the same is true when choosing how to use video recordings?
      - everdrive 7y ago
        Maybe. They're more ubiquitous, and almost certainly available to more parties. Can I really exercise my own judgement when my boss can watch the tape too?
        EpicEng 7y ago
        My wife is a teacher and I promise you that principals don't want to have to manage their teacher's classes. They only step in when required or asked to.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    No teacher can watch the entire classroom constantly and unfailingly.
  - elliekelly 7y ago
    But the teacher doesn’t create a permanent record of everything they observe.
  - streb-lo 7y ago
    I agree with you (my wife is also a teacher) but good luck with this crowd. Some of the HN commenters are counting down the days until someone founds a libertarian utopian moon colony.
    - DickingAround 7y ago
      As a libertarian looking foreward to a moon base... Im totally good w cameras in the hands of civilians. I use my closed loop, not online connected, home serveilance system every month: saw at least 4 crimes and even caght a home invader. Passed the info we want to the cops but not all. We dont all hate cams: Some of us just dont want gov to have them on us all the time.
- behringer 7y ago
  And let's get real here about how we solve problems with decreased privacy. Good luck ever getting an official to do anything for you. If it does not benefit them or the system, they never have the time or authority to do it. The surveillance is to benefit the state, not the surveilled.
  - skybrian 7y ago
    This is abstraction. How do you apply that to the case of a teacher sending misbehaving kids to the principal's office, and what would you want instead?
    - behringer 7y ago
      We've never required surveillance to send kids to the office before...
      - nostrademons 7y ago
        Having a teacher in the room has the same "you're being watched" effect as a camera, it's just less efficient at watching. I want to highlight the tension between liberty & socialization here, because I think it's getting glossed over. Public education is a huge infringement on individual liberty - it's basically mandatory brainwashing of kids for 6-8 hours/day, 180 days/year, for 12 years. Nobody would realistically suggest getting rid of it, because we all grew up with it. Taking it back a step, parenting is also an infringement on individual liberty - a child is totally dependent upon a parent, and oftentimes exposed to nothing other than the parent's views, and is biologically hard-wired to pick up on a parent's emotions and mirror them. Can't really blame society for that, though, evolution did it. People who worry about the slippery slope are right to worry. But it's been going on for centuries. We think that our particular point on it is natural and right because that's what we grew up with, just as our kids might think pervasive surveillance is natural and right because that's what they grew up with - which is exactly what we're justifiably afraid of. If we lived on individual farming homesteads and someone proposed taking our kids away from us for the majority of their waking childhood, we'd probably be even more upset. Probably the endgame is like the Matrix, where humans are confined to individual pods with no agency of their own, except that instead of being tapped for bio-energy we'll end up being used to train machine-learning algorithms.
ralusek 7y ago
> No one actually watches the video, unless something happens. You must do PR for the NSA.
- panzagl 7y ago
  Or a school has fewer resources than the NSA. And don't think I don't see the potential for abuse, but I see the potential for abuse in basically everything. You have to give organizations the benefit of the doubt the same way you do individuals.
  - krageon 7y ago
    > You have to give organizations the benefit of the doubt the same way you do individuals. Why? I don't normally like being overly contrarian, but in this case this position is so naive that I just can't think of a good reason to do what you're proposing. Especially in the US (and certain other problematic countries) you really should know better than to trust an organisation with sensitive information.
crankylinuxuser 7y ago
> No one actually watches the video, unless something happens You're right. Now, nobody watches unless something happens. And then some shifty SV startup starts selling ML studentcams that determine what "bad" is. Of course, questioning the ML is verboten. It made the decision and you cannot ask why.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  Not sure why you're being downvoted. This is the same reason I don't want e.g. FB collecting data on every action I take. I don't care if they can glean something from it today; the mere fact that such a database exists worries me about what they will be able to do with it tomorrow.
ghettoimp 7y ago
Having the other 28 kids see how to resolve petty squabbles is likely more valuable than their regularly scheduled elementary school lessons.
option 7y ago
> No one actually watches the video, unless something happens - Algorithms do (or will pretty soon )
flycaliguy 7y ago
Not right now maybe. The system will by laid in place before the truly objectionable use cases start cropping up.
cgriswald 7y ago
> No one actually watches the video, unless something happens. This is not reality. Even with access restrictions in place, people are going to weigh the pros and cons of watching the video to achieve their own ends. Who might watch it? A supervisor or coworker with a vendetta. A student/teacher obsessed with a student/teacher. A pedophile. A teacher looking to silence a challenging (but not problematic) student. A racist looking to have a particular student removed. A student looking for embarrassing things about other students to post online. etc. etc.

everdrive 7y ago

If it helps, this is a very realistic portrayal of how privacy is degraded over time. Invading privacy has all sorts of practical applications. You can fight crime more effectively, and measure trends, and generally be more effective at all sorts of capitalism and statecraft. But, problems, and risks just pile up over time. Just think of what we could do for just one small sacrifice!

panzagl 7y ago
But what privacy is there in a classroom? Theoretically the teacher could capture the same information by being more observant.
- everdrive 7y ago
  A wise teacher can offer a bit more dignity by choosing what they notice and draw attention to, or not.
  - skybrian 7y ago
    Perhaps the same is true when choosing how to use video recordings?
    - everdrive 7y ago
      Maybe. They're more ubiquitous, and almost certainly available to more parties. Can I really exercise my own judgement when my boss can watch the tape too?
      - EpicEng 7y ago
        My wife is a teacher and I promise you that principals don't want to have to manage their teacher's classes. They only step in when required or asked to.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- saagarjha 7y ago
  No teacher can watch the entire classroom constantly and unfailingly.
- elliekelly 7y ago
  But the teacher doesn’t create a permanent record of everything they observe.
- streb-lo 7y ago
  I agree with you (my wife is also a teacher) but good luck with this crowd. Some of the HN commenters are counting down the days until someone founds a libertarian utopian moon colony.
  - DickingAround 7y ago
    As a libertarian looking foreward to a moon base... Im totally good w cameras in the hands of civilians. I use my closed loop, not online connected, home serveilance system every month: saw at least 4 crimes and even caght a home invader. Passed the info we want to the cops but not all. We dont all hate cams: Some of us just dont want gov to have them on us all the time.
behringer 7y ago
And let's get real here about how we solve problems with decreased privacy. Good luck ever getting an official to do anything for you. If it does not benefit them or the system, they never have the time or authority to do it. The surveillance is to benefit the state, not the surveilled.
- skybrian 7y ago
  This is abstraction. How do you apply that to the case of a teacher sending misbehaving kids to the principal's office, and what would you want instead?
  - behringer 7y ago
    We've never required surveillance to send kids to the office before...
    - nostrademons 7y ago
      Having a teacher in the room has the same "you're being watched" effect as a camera, it's just less efficient at watching. I want to highlight the tension between liberty & socialization here, because I think it's getting glossed over. Public education is a huge infringement on individual liberty - it's basically mandatory brainwashing of kids for 6-8 hours/day, 180 days/year, for 12 years. Nobody would realistically suggest getting rid of it, because we all grew up with it. Taking it back a step, parenting is also an infringement on individual liberty - a child is totally dependent upon a parent, and oftentimes exposed to nothing other than the parent's views, and is biologically hard-wired to pick up on a parent's emotions and mirror them. Can't really blame society for that, though, evolution did it. People who worry about the slippery slope are right to worry. But it's been going on for centuries. We think that our particular point on it is natural and right because that's what we grew up with, just as our kids might think pervasive surveillance is natural and right because that's what they grew up with - which is exactly what we're justifiably afraid of. If we lived on individual farming homesteads and someone proposed taking our kids away from us for the majority of their waking childhood, we'd probably be even more upset. Probably the endgame is like the Matrix, where humans are confined to individual pods with no agency of their own, except that instead of being tapped for bio-energy we'll end up being used to train machine-learning algorithms.

ralusek 7y ago

> No one actually watches the video, unless something happens. You must do PR for the NSA.

panzagl 7y ago
Or a school has fewer resources than the NSA. And don't think I don't see the potential for abuse, but I see the potential for abuse in basically everything. You have to give organizations the benefit of the doubt the same way you do individuals.
- krageon 7y ago
  > You have to give organizations the benefit of the doubt the same way you do individuals. Why? I don't normally like being overly contrarian, but in this case this position is so naive that I just can't think of a good reason to do what you're proposing. Especially in the US (and certain other problematic countries) you really should know better than to trust an organisation with sensitive information.

crankylinuxuser 7y ago

> No one actually watches the video, unless something happens You're right. Now, nobody watches unless something happens. And then some shifty SV startup starts selling ML studentcams that determine what "bad" is. Of course, questioning the ML is verboten. It made the decision and you cannot ask why.

EpicEng 7y ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted. This is the same reason I don't want e.g. FB collecting data on every action I take. I don't care if they can glean something from it today; the mere fact that such a database exists worries me about what they will be able to do with it tomorrow.

ghettoimp 7y ago

Having the other 28 kids see how to resolve petty squabbles is likely more valuable than their regularly scheduled elementary school lessons.

option 7y ago

> No one actually watches the video, unless something happens - Algorithms do (or will pretty soon )

flycaliguy 7y ago

Not right now maybe. The system will by laid in place before the truly objectionable use cases start cropping up.

cgriswald 7y ago

> No one actually watches the video, unless something happens. This is not reality. Even with access restrictions in place, people are going to weigh the pros and cons of watching the video to achieve their own ends. Who might watch it? A supervisor or coworker with a vendetta. A student/teacher obsessed with a student/teacher. A pedophile. A teacher looking to silence a challenging (but not problematic) student. A racist looking to have a particular student removed. A student looking for embarrassing things about other students to post online. etc. etc.