4 ms·

> The convergence of parental anxiety and tech access can extend surveillant care into a total system, reaching past the baby and any employee in the home or da

> The convergence of parental anxiety and tech access can extend surveillant care into a total system, reaching past the baby and any employee in the home or daycare center to the street beyond. Increasingly, technophilic and/or anxious families are turning to websites like Nextdoor and smart home systems like Alexa, Google Home, Nest Cams, and Ring, not only to help with domestic management but to reinforce the barrier between the outside and the inside, keeping the outside out. These technologies slip from self-surveillance (when should I reorder my groceries?) to familial surveillance (what is my child watching?) to surveilling anyone who might come into contact with one’s children. The battle for the hearts of parents is already concluded. Now Amazon and such just need to unveil consumer tech which is good enough. The idea that you can have a camera on your front door to see everyone is appealing to way too many people.

HowardStark 4y ago
Is there a way to walk it all back? It’s an issue that worries me to almost no end. Idealistically, I might say education could solve it, except that I see this huge lapse of empathy on the subject of surveillance that makes the education impractical past a point.
- Clubber 4y ago
  No, I don't see a way without legislation, and I don't see that happening without a significant event. Having said that, ring doorbells are useful in finding people who try to break into homes and commit other crimes. Aiden Fucci was convicted with help of a Ring camera. I'm sure his victim's parents are grateful. https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/crime/2023/03/23/aiden-fucci-florida-murder-killing-tristyn-bailey/70040639007/ https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/crime/2023/03/23/aid...
engeljohnb 4y ago
> The idea that you can have a camera on your front door to see everyone is appealing to way too many people. That kind of thinking was easy for me back when I was living in a safe area. Now I've had to move to a sketchy neighborhood, and if "surveillance" helps to keep my girlfriend from being r----, that's an acceptable tradeoff for me at this time.
- Juliate 4y ago
  I totally accept this, I think I would (re)act the same. But not without being still conflicted: this is kind of a privatisation of security. What should be available and enforced for everyone (security of people and things) is abdicated by the society authorities, and instead of resorting to pressure them to do their job (educate, prevent, accompany, protect), people take the fast/"easier" solution of a private, paid-for solution which promise is still dubious (as it does not completely remove the anxiety but can well fuel it). Private security companies, insurances and tech equipment sellers all have an interest in this. And again, state/communal responsibility is abdicated. Overall, it cost more to the same population to go towards the private solutions, rather than pushing, either for the same equipment/guarantees, but through a common public requirement (because costs would be bundled), either for a voluntary policy in urbanisation, education and prevention (because of the side effects).
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- brokenmachine 4y ago
  How are cameras going to stop that from happening? They could possibly help with attribution after-the-fact but wouldn't stop it from happening. I'd suggest taking other more effective measures if you're worried about that happening.

HowardStark 4y ago

Is there a way to walk it all back? It’s an issue that worries me to almost no end. Idealistically, I might say education could solve it, except that I see this huge lapse of empathy on the subject of surveillance that makes the education impractical past a point.

Clubber 4y ago
No, I don't see a way without legislation, and I don't see that happening without a significant event. Having said that, ring doorbells are useful in finding people who try to break into homes and commit other crimes. Aiden Fucci was convicted with help of a Ring camera. I'm sure his victim's parents are grateful. https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/crime/2023/03/23/aiden-fucci-florida-murder-killing-tristyn-bailey/70040639007/ https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/crime/2023/03/23/aid...

engeljohnb 4y ago

> The idea that you can have a camera on your front door to see everyone is appealing to way too many people. That kind of thinking was easy for me back when I was living in a safe area. Now I've had to move to a sketchy neighborhood, and if "surveillance" helps to keep my girlfriend from being r----, that's an acceptable tradeoff for me at this time.

Juliate 4y ago
I totally accept this, I think I would (re)act the same. But not without being still conflicted: this is kind of a privatisation of security. What should be available and enforced for everyone (security of people and things) is abdicated by the society authorities, and instead of resorting to pressure them to do their job (educate, prevent, accompany, protect), people take the fast/"easier" solution of a private, paid-for solution which promise is still dubious (as it does not completely remove the anxiety but can well fuel it). Private security companies, insurances and tech equipment sellers all have an interest in this. And again, state/communal responsibility is abdicated. Overall, it cost more to the same population to go towards the private solutions, rather than pushing, either for the same equipment/guarantees, but through a common public requirement (because costs would be bundled), either for a voluntary policy in urbanisation, education and prevention (because of the side effects).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
brokenmachine 4y ago
How are cameras going to stop that from happening? They could possibly help with attribution after-the-fact but wouldn't stop it from happening. I'd suggest taking other more effective measures if you're worried about that happening.