4 ms·

I think main differentiator is that an individual human is unlikely to stand in one place just watching for an extended period of time. It actually was very exp

I think main differentiator is that an individual human is unlikely to stand in one place just watching for an extended period of time. It actually was very expensive to do that kind of surveillance not that long ago, which is why it was not deployed without a good reason. Camera, on the other hand, is cheap. Individual creep is preferable to a panopticon.

dekhn 4y ago
None of these things really bother/worry me. This is mainly a threshold argument- a thing that was hard got easier, but didn't fundamentally change what is possible for a dedicated adversary.
- uoaei 4y ago
  The scale of difference between $25/hr for a human and less than $0.01/day (amortized over the lifespan of the camera/service) changes the economics entirely. The circumstances before and after are paradigmatically different.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    - kelnos 4y ago
      I don't think we're arguing with you anymore about whether or not you could be bothered, just that you somehow seem to think that there's no (or only a minor or incremental) difference between a human watching your property and a camera recording it, which is objectively false. And of course no one can resist trying to correct someone who is Wrong On The Internet. Also I think it's because it sounds like you're refusing to sympathize with people who might be uncomfortable with this sort of thing. Are you the kind of person who would reflect on this issue and say, "this doesn't bother me, but I can see why it might bother someone else, so I wouldn't point a camera at my neighbor's house"? Or are you the kind of person who would say "this doesn't bother me personally, so I'll just do whatever I want and ignore how other people feel about this"? You are definitely giving off the latter vibe here, which is anti-social and selfish (not the kind of neighbor I'd want to live next to, regardless of this particular issue). Hopefully that's not who you are, though, and we've all just gotten caught up in the argument and are appearing one-dimensional.
      - dekhn 4y ago
        I dunno, I think I explained my position, my reasoning, my priors, and came to a reasonable conclusion. I'm certainly not insisting I'm right. But what I know I can do is install a camera in a visible location and be open to people approaching me and asking for changes. I've also read the relevant california and federal laws (not in detail) and concluded what I'm doing is not a violation, in letter or intent. I'm not looking into people's windows, or their backyards.
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        > came to a reasonable conclusion [D]idn't Aristarchus and the Pythagoreans propose heliocentrism in ancient times? If only they had prevailed, we might have had Real Science millennia sooner. What was their evidence? Well, you see, fire is nobler than earth and the center is a nobler position. So fire has to be in the center. QED. There are many names for this sort of thinking, but "scientific" is not one of them.
        dekhn 4y ago
        Wat? I didn't say scientific, I said reasonable. In the legal meaning of the term ("just, rational, appropriate"). I'm not making a scientific argument. Keep your criticisms high quality.
    - uoaei 4y ago
      I think it takes as long as you continue to believe your opinion deserves no counterbalance in a public forum setting.
- kelnos 4y ago
  How is that not fundamentally different? 1) Human stands there and watches your property. A description of what happened on your property is subject to whether or not people believe this human, and the fallibility of human memory. This human cannot be there 24/7, and must -- at minimum -- break to sleep, acquire food, and use the bathroom. In reality, they'll have many other demands on their time that mean they can't (or won't want to) spend much time watching your property. 2) A connected, always-on recording device that captures what's happening in high definition, 24/7 (assuming it has an IR light; if not, ok, more like 12/7). This becomes an indisputable, permanent record that can be replayed as often as anyone wants, and that most reasonable people would believe, without question, as reflecting what is truly going on. How are these two things not fundamentally different? This is approaching "definition of fundamental" territory.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    Clearly, we have different premises.
uoaei 4y ago
Exactly. The high cost of human eyeballs trained on a specific target for long periods of time introduces a negative feedback loop which tames the overreach. Cheap, ubiquitous cameras with virtually unlimited storage eliminates that self-regulating mechanism and degrades the trust between members of a society.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

dekhn 4y ago

None of these things really bother/worry me. This is mainly a threshold argument- a thing that was hard got easier, but didn't fundamentally change what is possible for a dedicated adversary.

uoaei 4y ago
The scale of difference between $25/hr for a human and less than $0.01/day (amortized over the lifespan of the camera/service) changes the economics entirely. The circumstances before and after are paradigmatically different.
- dekhn 4y ago
  - kelnos 4y ago
    I don't think we're arguing with you anymore about whether or not you could be bothered, just that you somehow seem to think that there's no (or only a minor or incremental) difference between a human watching your property and a camera recording it, which is objectively false. And of course no one can resist trying to correct someone who is Wrong On The Internet. Also I think it's because it sounds like you're refusing to sympathize with people who might be uncomfortable with this sort of thing. Are you the kind of person who would reflect on this issue and say, "this doesn't bother me, but I can see why it might bother someone else, so I wouldn't point a camera at my neighbor's house"? Or are you the kind of person who would say "this doesn't bother me personally, so I'll just do whatever I want and ignore how other people feel about this"? You are definitely giving off the latter vibe here, which is anti-social and selfish (not the kind of neighbor I'd want to live next to, regardless of this particular issue). Hopefully that's not who you are, though, and we've all just gotten caught up in the argument and are appearing one-dimensional.
    - dekhn 4y ago
      I dunno, I think I explained my position, my reasoning, my priors, and came to a reasonable conclusion. I'm certainly not insisting I'm right. But what I know I can do is install a camera in a visible location and be open to people approaching me and asking for changes. I've also read the relevant california and federal laws (not in detail) and concluded what I'm doing is not a violation, in letter or intent. I'm not looking into people's windows, or their backyards.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        > came to a reasonable conclusion [D]idn't Aristarchus and the Pythagoreans propose heliocentrism in ancient times? If only they had prevailed, we might have had Real Science millennia sooner. What was their evidence? Well, you see, fire is nobler than earth and the center is a nobler position. So fire has to be in the center. QED. There are many names for this sort of thinking, but "scientific" is not one of them.
        dekhn 4y ago
        Wat? I didn't say scientific, I said reasonable. In the legal meaning of the term ("just, rational, appropriate"). I'm not making a scientific argument. Keep your criticisms high quality.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    I think it takes as long as you continue to believe your opinion deserves no counterbalance in a public forum setting.
kelnos 4y ago
How is that not fundamentally different? 1) Human stands there and watches your property. A description of what happened on your property is subject to whether or not people believe this human, and the fallibility of human memory. This human cannot be there 24/7, and must -- at minimum -- break to sleep, acquire food, and use the bathroom. In reality, they'll have many other demands on their time that mean they can't (or won't want to) spend much time watching your property. 2) A connected, always-on recording device that captures what's happening in high definition, 24/7 (assuming it has an IR light; if not, ok, more like 12/7). This becomes an indisputable, permanent record that can be replayed as often as anyone wants, and that most reasonable people would believe, without question, as reflecting what is truly going on. How are these two things not fundamentally different? This is approaching "definition of fundamental" territory.
- dekhn 4y ago
  Clearly, we have different premises.

uoaei 4y ago

Exactly. The high cost of human eyeballs trained on a specific target for long periods of time introduces a negative feedback loop which tames the overreach. Cheap, ubiquitous cameras with virtually unlimited storage eliminates that self-regulating mechanism and degrades the trust between members of a society.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]