5 ms·

This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I'm in the same boat as em-bee - I am not ok with security cameras in public[1], or with public-facing doorbell camer

This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I'm in the same boat as em-bee - I am not ok with security cameras in public[1], or with public-facing doorbell cameras, either. My thought is basically: if a camera is recording the public, the public should have access to the recording. That isn't generally the case, so I'm not ok with it. [1] Note that by "public" I mean cameras facing streets, sidewalks, etc. I can always choose not to go into a store if I don't want to be on its cameras.

renewiltord 5y ago
The article addresses this. What you are okay with is not the sole basis for determining what is ethical. For instance, I am not okay with you reading this text. I meant it for everyone except mdorazio. I demand you apologize.
- closeparen 5y ago
  If you took this to a regulator they would probably laugh at you, but from what I can tell this statement is technically enforceable under GDPR.
dheera 5y ago
I disagree with this. I consider the human eye a camera. It also saves videos in a storage medium that doesn't permit deletion. I don't distinguish between a silicon-based camera and a carbon-based camera. To me they're just different rows of the periodic table. In fact I even hope to think that one day silicon-based cameras can be used to restore vision to carbon-based beings that have non-functioning carbon-based cameras. To that extent even if I have functioning carbon-based cameras, having a silicon-based camera attached to my body is just an extension of my body and you most certainly do not have the right of access to the memories it records, regardless of whether those memories are stored in neurons or in an SD card (even that detail is not your right to know; I could have had a flash memory implant in my brain and it would be a HIPAA violation if you demanded to know what implants I have). To ban silicon-based cameras is a gross ADA violation. To demand to know exactly by what mechanism videos are stored is a HIPAA violation. If you want to ban recording you might as well blindfold everyone while you're at it.
- boardwaalk 5y ago
  We’re living in the present, not some cybernetic future. To say all this when it’s not relevant to the present is a little silly in my view. We don’t have cameras and flash embedded in ourselves, someone’s recollections are not the same as an video file in terms of evidence, and there’s a substantial difference between someone actively on the street corner watching and security camera you can set and forget which will record 24/7.
  - dheera 5y ago
    > We’re living in the present, not some cybernetic future. Maybe you aren't, that doesn't mean everyone chooses that lifestyle or should be forced into that mode of thinking. I for one choose to think in terms of the future. > We don’t have cameras and flash embedded in ourselves Oh you bet I do happen to have a piece of flash storage embedded in my body, for a reason I choose to not disclose here. Although mine is not wired into an imaging device, it's only a matter of time before someone else's flash implant IS wired to an imaging device, and they have every right to.
  - blitzar 5y ago
    The human eye, with or without a cybernetic enhancement is admissible in court. Indeed 'eye witness' testimony, despite being horribly unreliable is particularly powerful in court. Personally I see little to no difference between human eyes and film eyes when one is standing in the middle of the street 50 years ago, let alone now with some implied cybernetics that make the difference actually zero. If the argument is that a snapshot can not be observed as a collection of light wa eves hitting cellulose, or a digital sesnsor then one has to ask the question if allow the receptors in the human eyeball to detect the reflections of light is acceptable either.
    - anigbrowl 5y ago
      Your memories carry little to no weight if they conflict with some more tangible record in a dispute. When that changes, there will no doubt be other ramifications, like neural disrupters or jamming technologies.
foxfluff 5y ago
I guess I have similar feelings but it's not so much about whether the public can access it. It's about the fact that I'm not so comfortable with surveillance in general. I would also feel uncomfortable if they had street corners full of watchmen hired to just stare and keep track of everyone. I would feel uncomfortable at work if they had people or cameras positioned to stare over my shoulder. It's not the camera, it's the surveillance. And by that token, I'm ok with street photography. I love street photography. It's completely different from surveillance.
tshaddox 5y ago
> Note that by "public" I mean cameras facing streets, sidewalks, etc. I can always choose not to go into a store if I don't want to be on its cameras. Given how cheap and ubiquitous internet-connected security cams are now, this seems like a distinction without a difference. Unless you expect the “free market” to deliver a brand of “proudly webcam-free” businesses (don’t hold your breath), this is just going to mean that you can’t go in any stores.

renewiltord 5y ago

The article addresses this. What you are okay with is not the sole basis for determining what is ethical. For instance, I am not okay with you reading this text. I meant it for everyone except mdorazio. I demand you apologize.

closeparen 5y ago
If you took this to a regulator they would probably laugh at you, but from what I can tell this statement is technically enforceable under GDPR.

dheera 5y ago

I disagree with this. I consider the human eye a camera. It also saves videos in a storage medium that doesn't permit deletion. I don't distinguish between a silicon-based camera and a carbon-based camera. To me they're just different rows of the periodic table. In fact I even hope to think that one day silicon-based cameras can be used to restore vision to carbon-based beings that have non-functioning carbon-based cameras. To that extent even if I have functioning carbon-based cameras, having a silicon-based camera attached to my body is just an extension of my body and you most certainly do not have the right of access to the memories it records, regardless of whether those memories are stored in neurons or in an SD card (even that detail is not your right to know; I could have had a flash memory implant in my brain and it would be a HIPAA violation if you demanded to know what implants I have). To ban silicon-based cameras is a gross ADA violation. To demand to know exactly by what mechanism videos are stored is a HIPAA violation. If you want to ban recording you might as well blindfold everyone while you're at it.

boardwaalk 5y ago
We’re living in the present, not some cybernetic future. To say all this when it’s not relevant to the present is a little silly in my view. We don’t have cameras and flash embedded in ourselves, someone’s recollections are not the same as an video file in terms of evidence, and there’s a substantial difference between someone actively on the street corner watching and security camera you can set and forget which will record 24/7.
- dheera 5y ago
  > We’re living in the present, not some cybernetic future. Maybe you aren't, that doesn't mean everyone chooses that lifestyle or should be forced into that mode of thinking. I for one choose to think in terms of the future. > We don’t have cameras and flash embedded in ourselves Oh you bet I do happen to have a piece of flash storage embedded in my body, for a reason I choose to not disclose here. Although mine is not wired into an imaging device, it's only a matter of time before someone else's flash implant IS wired to an imaging device, and they have every right to.
- blitzar 5y ago
  The human eye, with or without a cybernetic enhancement is admissible in court. Indeed 'eye witness' testimony, despite being horribly unreliable is particularly powerful in court. Personally I see little to no difference between human eyes and film eyes when one is standing in the middle of the street 50 years ago, let alone now with some implied cybernetics that make the difference actually zero. If the argument is that a snapshot can not be observed as a collection of light wa eves hitting cellulose, or a digital sesnsor then one has to ask the question if allow the receptors in the human eyeball to detect the reflections of light is acceptable either.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    Your memories carry little to no weight if they conflict with some more tangible record in a dispute. When that changes, there will no doubt be other ramifications, like neural disrupters or jamming technologies.

foxfluff 5y ago

I guess I have similar feelings but it's not so much about whether the public can access it. It's about the fact that I'm not so comfortable with surveillance in general. I would also feel uncomfortable if they had street corners full of watchmen hired to just stare and keep track of everyone. I would feel uncomfortable at work if they had people or cameras positioned to stare over my shoulder. It's not the camera, it's the surveillance. And by that token, I'm ok with street photography. I love street photography. It's completely different from surveillance.

tshaddox 5y ago

> Note that by "public" I mean cameras facing streets, sidewalks, etc. I can always choose not to go into a store if I don't want to be on its cameras. Given how cheap and ubiquitous internet-connected security cams are now, this seems like a distinction without a difference. Unless you expect the “free market” to deliver a brand of “proudly webcam-free” businesses (don’t hold your breath), this is just going to mean that you can’t go in any stores.