3 ms·
And enabling child abusers is even more niche, yet houses are still sold without built-in surveillance cameras, that would let law enforcement look at the recor
by MikeUt 6y ago
And enabling child abusers is even more niche, yet houses are still sold without built-in surveillance cameras, that would let law enforcement look at the recording of what you were doing (with a warrant, of course!)
But as it stands, private houses are warrant-proof places where anything can happen.
- patrickaljord 6y agohttps://www.wired.com/2011/05/warrantless-house-search/ https://www.wired.com/2011/05/warrantless-house-search/ > yet houses are still sold without built-in surveillance cameras, that would let law enforcement look at the recording of what you were doing (with a warrant, of course!) yet, but it could come. I can imagine offline AI detector that spies on you 24/7 in your house and only sends footage when it detects something illegal so the police wouldn't do the monitoring. I could see plenty of people being ok with that specially if it's advertised as a good way to proof your innocence.
- Lev1a 6y agoI mean... people are already dumb and security-blind enough to willingly implant surveillance bugs into their homes (Alexa, Google Home, un-neutered smart TVs etc.). Just because these are manufactured and controlled by the private sector doesn't mean it's not just a stepping stone for some kind of mandated surveillance equipment installed into homes in future. No. Thanks.
- varispeed 6y agoImagine people could see on their telly what they said during the day and number of likes from the officers who watch them. The more correctly you behave, more likes you get and maybe a tax rebate. This is going to be the future. Modern politics in the UK is heavy influenced by R Thaler. People are being slowly nudged towards such concepts.