3 ms·

It's not wrong, but it's backwards looking. They aren't addressing the root problem, which is "internet cameras everywhere", and the answer is to figure out ho

It's not wrong, but it's backwards looking. They aren't addressing the root problem, which is "internet cameras everywhere", and the answer is to figure out how to work with that reality, not to turn the clock back to 1975. The solution will involve doing a forward-looking envisioning of a mass-camera society where rights are respected. Not something I'll be able to invent on the fly in a HN comment, sorry. :)

contravariant 6y ago
I get that limiting the things people can do with video footage isn't really an integral solution, as it requires mankind to unilaterally decide to not even develop a particular technology (which so far hasn't really ever worked as far as I can tell). But if we're trying to get to the root problem then surely we should also consider just removing the cameras? Because trying to figure out a way to live under constant surveillance isn't exactly addressing the root problem either.
- pnathan 6y ago
  The answer is ... no. Not because it wouldn't solve the problem, but because at some point cameras will be so ubiquitous that there's no point in banning the State from putting up cameras, because every tom, dick, and harry has a camera on their phone and on their glasses, every store has a camera system, some jackets and hats have cameras, etc, etc, etc. Sure. The State doesn't have cameras. It will develop a automated warrant-generator to pull all cloud footage from cameras that were in a specific area at a specific time. They will have agreements with the major cloud camera vendors. All legal, above board, reasonable, protective of rights and process, and exactly identical to if the State had camera towers. Same for biometric ID. Fine. You don't want the State having in-house biometrics? Great. It can set up agreements with Facebook and Google: "Identify this person" - a few flatfeet go run down those leads. Net effect is to have the same result, but now with less accountability (private firm), more expense (private contracts getting profit), and less safety (private firms with the data). That's why we need to assume the existence of these technologies and the followons, then design the world we want to see given the followons.
  - contravariant 6y ago
    Whoever said we're only banning the state from filming public areas? And before you try to convince me that's weird, please note that there are already laws that prevent people from filming anything other than their own private property (with some minor leeway). And it's not like a law against cameras would be impossible to enforce. At the very least in the widespread constant surveillance scenario the government is entirely aware of the existence and location of the cameras.

contravariant 6y ago

I get that limiting the things people can do with video footage isn't really an integral solution, as it requires mankind to unilaterally decide to not even develop a particular technology (which so far hasn't really ever worked as far as I can tell). But if we're trying to get to the root problem then surely we should also consider just removing the cameras? Because trying to figure out a way to live under constant surveillance isn't exactly addressing the root problem either.

pnathan 6y ago
The answer is ... no. Not because it wouldn't solve the problem, but because at some point cameras will be so ubiquitous that there's no point in banning the State from putting up cameras, because every tom, dick, and harry has a camera on their phone and on their glasses, every store has a camera system, some jackets and hats have cameras, etc, etc, etc. Sure. The State doesn't have cameras. It will develop a automated warrant-generator to pull all cloud footage from cameras that were in a specific area at a specific time. They will have agreements with the major cloud camera vendors. All legal, above board, reasonable, protective of rights and process, and exactly identical to if the State had camera towers. Same for biometric ID. Fine. You don't want the State having in-house biometrics? Great. It can set up agreements with Facebook and Google: "Identify this person" - a few flatfeet go run down those leads. Net effect is to have the same result, but now with less accountability (private firm), more expense (private contracts getting profit), and less safety (private firms with the data). That's why we need to assume the existence of these technologies and the followons, then design the world we want to see given the followons.
- contravariant 6y ago
  Whoever said we're only banning the state from filming public areas? And before you try to convince me that's weird, please note that there are already laws that prevent people from filming anything other than their own private property (with some minor leeway). And it's not like a law against cameras would be impossible to enforce. At the very least in the widespread constant surveillance scenario the government is entirely aware of the existence and location of the cameras.