4 ms·

Imagine if Google offered a retail solution advertised as “record who came in and out of your house”. They would offer a CCTV for free and run centralized face

Imagine if Google offered a retail solution advertised as “record who came in and out of your house”. They would offer a CCTV for free and run centralized face recognition on everybody visiting. They’d give you a bit of stats, but truly they would aggregate data on where people go and build shadow profiles (supposedly to facilitate ad targeting). And imagine 90% of households were using it.

judge2020 5y ago
So this is only a problem if the person thinking of visiting their neighbors' or friends' house has an issue with it. Why can't I install such a system if I want to? Why does it matter that 90% of households use this system? In fact, because 90% of households use this system, doesn't that mean society at large agrees that this is an OK thing to have? We all opt for wearing clothes only because society at large has agreed that wearing clothes is a requirement; there is no law of nature mandating this, and select small groups of people congregate in nudist colonies to escape from this societal requirement. Even on the non-private side, if I don't like clothes, why should I be forced to enter government buildings (for official government business such as court appearances) with them on? Surely society shouldn't be forced to make accomodations for me, just because I have a different opinion on these topics. If 90% of households did in fact use such a system, it would be the new normal because it's a nearly universal collective opinion on the technology. A society almost never caters to those that are the ultra-minority if it inconveniences the 90% or directly challenges the 90%'s own freedoms and choices when it comes to their lives, especially when that's in regards to something as low-impact as what sort of privacy visitors to a residence have while on that property.
- Teever 5y ago
  > because 90% of households use this system, doesn't that mean society at large agrees that this is an OK thing to have? And if 90% of households have slaves doesn't that mean that society at large agrees that this is an OK thing to have?
  - judge2020 5y ago
    Yes. Slavery was OK in the US for a long while. If things hadn't been done to get this changed in the US, it would still be seen as an OK thing to do, and in reality no higher power or law of nature would stop that, even in $current_year - evidenced by how worldwide modern slavery/forced labor is still going strong[0]. My point is that there is no correct moral compass, no general rule as to what behavior is good or evil and no arbitrator that will correct the wrongs humans are doing in the world. Society is only governed by itself, and thus a 'supermajority' of ideals is what will reign over the superminority in terms of law and general consensus. If society accepts and encourages one company to control an absolute record of human movement and presence, it's not going to be stopped and that majority isn't going to cater to the small portion of society that doesn't agree. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century#Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century#St...
    - FeepingCreature 5y ago
      Are you asserting that it is your current opinion that slavery was morally OK in the US, because it was morally accepted at the time? (Warning: this is a trap question, do not answer yes, the only socially accepted answer is no)
      - drusepth 5y ago
        Not the guy you're responding to, but this trap question seemed like you either misunderstood their comment or are unintentionally putting words in their mouth. Their comment explicitly subscribes to a form of ethical relativism [1], which argues that there is no universal concept of "morally right" or "morally wrong", and that morals are determined solely by the society judging them at that time. [1] >Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a society's practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies. >https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/ethical-relativism/ https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision... It is not a particularly helpful take in an ethical debate (which this whole privacy thread is) outside of making a populist argument ("if everything thinks X is morally acceptable, then it is; who are you to say it's not?"). That said, I'm not sure I'd want to make the loaded comparison of equating "taking notes of who does what in your house" to slavery. One of these things is very clearly significantly worse than the other.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
somenameforme 5y ago
That's not even the half of it. It's not only building a record of who came in and out, but what they did, where they went, what or who they "engaged" with in the house, and arbitrarily more granular information. And the person visiting your house, on average, has no clue any of this is happening.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
iptq 5y ago
Isn't this literally what Ring does?
- Teever 5y ago
  Yeah and isn't this stalking?
  - themacguffinman 5y ago
    You think installing cameras on your own property is stalking? Putting aside that this is legal nonsense, are you saying that the millions of private retail stores, offices, and houses that install security cameras are actually stalking and the majority of citizens that visit grocery stores are stalking victims? I mean, maybe you do believe that, but it's a little ridiculous to freak out over something that most people do and are used to. At most, it's an extension of the status quo. Edit: I suppose it's not that ridiculous if you think most of the world is evil, but I am genuinely curious if you believe that.
    - strogonoff 5y ago
      Individual businesses aren’t stalking anyone if their CCTVs are watching out for themselves. But as soon as there is a centralized company offering the service and gobbling all the data, and that company acts like Google does with regards to web tracking, then it’d be in some sense no better than stalking (or even worse, stalking at scale). If it only obtains the data to provide you the service of knowing who comes in or out, and deletes the data as soon as it’s not needed anymore, there would be no question; but that’s not where profit is in a double-sided market.
      - themacguffinman 5y ago
        Like ADT? Like a lot of security companies that offer monitoring solutions on behalf of clients, especially smaller businesses and individual homeowners? "gobbling all the data" is vaguely scary while being totally meaningless. GTM data is fully managed by the client, Google contractually does not randomly spy on it. Many businesses would argue that they do delete user data after they don't need it anymore, but analytics is useful and therefore necessary for a fairly long time (many platforms have natural retention limits, usually a few years). Google themselves deletes user data on their first party products after 18 months by default (referring to things like Web & App activity and Location history) and users can set it as low as 3 months, approximately the same amount of time as security footage. Edited to correct a number and remove some snark
eru 5y ago
Would be a bit creepy sure. But who am I to judge what other people install in their houses? I don't have to go and visit them, if I don't like it.
inlined 5y ago
You’re describing the modern experience in a grocery store

judge2020 5y ago

So this is only a problem if the person thinking of visiting their neighbors' or friends' house has an issue with it. Why can't I install such a system if I want to? Why does it matter that 90% of households use this system? In fact, because 90% of households use this system, doesn't that mean society at large agrees that this is an OK thing to have? We all opt for wearing clothes only because society at large has agreed that wearing clothes is a requirement; there is no law of nature mandating this, and select small groups of people congregate in nudist colonies to escape from this societal requirement. Even on the non-private side, if I don't like clothes, why should I be forced to enter government buildings (for official government business such as court appearances) with them on? Surely society shouldn't be forced to make accomodations for me, just because I have a different opinion on these topics. If 90% of households did in fact use such a system, it would be the new normal because it's a nearly universal collective opinion on the technology. A society almost never caters to those that are the ultra-minority if it inconveniences the 90% or directly challenges the 90%'s own freedoms and choices when it comes to their lives, especially when that's in regards to something as low-impact as what sort of privacy visitors to a residence have while on that property.

Teever 5y ago
> because 90% of households use this system, doesn't that mean society at large agrees that this is an OK thing to have? And if 90% of households have slaves doesn't that mean that society at large agrees that this is an OK thing to have?
- judge2020 5y ago
  Yes. Slavery was OK in the US for a long while. If things hadn't been done to get this changed in the US, it would still be seen as an OK thing to do, and in reality no higher power or law of nature would stop that, even in $current_year - evidenced by how worldwide modern slavery/forced labor is still going strong[0]. My point is that there is no correct moral compass, no general rule as to what behavior is good or evil and no arbitrator that will correct the wrongs humans are doing in the world. Society is only governed by itself, and thus a 'supermajority' of ideals is what will reign over the superminority in terms of law and general consensus. If society accepts and encourages one company to control an absolute record of human movement and presence, it's not going to be stopped and that majority isn't going to cater to the small portion of society that doesn't agree. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century#Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century#St...
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    Are you asserting that it is your current opinion that slavery was morally OK in the US, because it was morally accepted at the time? (Warning: this is a trap question, do not answer yes, the only socially accepted answer is no)
    - drusepth 5y ago
      Not the guy you're responding to, but this trap question seemed like you either misunderstood their comment or are unintentionally putting words in their mouth. Their comment explicitly subscribes to a form of ethical relativism [1], which argues that there is no universal concept of "morally right" or "morally wrong", and that morals are determined solely by the society judging them at that time. [1] >Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a society's practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies. >https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/ethical-relativism/ https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision... It is not a particularly helpful take in an ethical debate (which this whole privacy thread is) outside of making a populist argument ("if everything thinks X is morally acceptable, then it is; who are you to say it's not?"). That said, I'm not sure I'd want to make the loaded comparison of equating "taking notes of who does what in your house" to slavery. One of these things is very clearly significantly worse than the other.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

somenameforme 5y ago

That's not even the half of it. It's not only building a record of who came in and out, but what they did, where they went, what or who they "engaged" with in the house, and arbitrarily more granular information. And the person visiting your house, on average, has no clue any of this is happening.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

iptq 5y ago

Isn't this literally what Ring does?

Teever 5y ago
Yeah and isn't this stalking?
- themacguffinman 5y ago
  You think installing cameras on your own property is stalking? Putting aside that this is legal nonsense, are you saying that the millions of private retail stores, offices, and houses that install security cameras are actually stalking and the majority of citizens that visit grocery stores are stalking victims? I mean, maybe you do believe that, but it's a little ridiculous to freak out over something that most people do and are used to. At most, it's an extension of the status quo. Edit: I suppose it's not that ridiculous if you think most of the world is evil, but I am genuinely curious if you believe that.
  - strogonoff 5y ago
    Individual businesses aren’t stalking anyone if their CCTVs are watching out for themselves. But as soon as there is a centralized company offering the service and gobbling all the data, and that company acts like Google does with regards to web tracking, then it’d be in some sense no better than stalking (or even worse, stalking at scale). If it only obtains the data to provide you the service of knowing who comes in or out, and deletes the data as soon as it’s not needed anymore, there would be no question; but that’s not where profit is in a double-sided market.
    - themacguffinman 5y ago
      Like ADT? Like a lot of security companies that offer monitoring solutions on behalf of clients, especially smaller businesses and individual homeowners? "gobbling all the data" is vaguely scary while being totally meaningless. GTM data is fully managed by the client, Google contractually does not randomly spy on it. Many businesses would argue that they do delete user data after they don't need it anymore, but analytics is useful and therefore necessary for a fairly long time (many platforms have natural retention limits, usually a few years). Google themselves deletes user data on their first party products after 18 months by default (referring to things like Web & App activity and Location history) and users can set it as low as 3 months, approximately the same amount of time as security footage. Edited to correct a number and remove some snark

eru 5y ago

Would be a bit creepy sure. But who am I to judge what other people install in their houses? I don't have to go and visit them, if I don't like it.

inlined 5y ago

You’re describing the modern experience in a grocery store