20 ms·

Using Advanced Camera Tech and AI to Target the Poor

121 points by dxs 3y ago

reaperducer 3y ago
Original reporting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/05/16/surveillance-cameras-public-housing/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/05/16/surveilla...
- 3np 3y ago
  OP is really just a polarized rewrite of this, with some inacurracies sprinkled in and dystopic illsutration instead of footage and photos. @dang, can link be replaced with this?
  - ronsor 3y ago
    Petapixel is obviously trying to get more people outraged over AI-anything, as they do repeatedly [0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35715432 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35715432
  - nixass 3y ago
    Discussion is already underway based on OP's link, why change it? Submit your own thread and continue there if you want
    - 3np 3y ago
      I agree now; wasn't the case when the comment you're replying to was made.
GaggiX 3y ago
The choice of using AI generated images in this article is interesting. (If there are no AI generated images anymore, probably Dang changed the link to the Washington Post)
whitemary 3y ago
[flagged]
iinnPP 3y ago
"One resident was recorded spitting in the hallway" Im sure this wasn't the only thing used for the eviction but if it was that is clearly over the line. With that being said, the behavior is disgusting and if I was in a building dealing with such, I wouldn't feel bad to see them go. Having lived in such a situation before, I could find globs of spit, blood, and who knows what else on elevator buttons, door handles, mailboxes, and entry buzzers. It's disgusting and incredibly unhealthy. It's also discrimination towards people with germ related phobias or disorders.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  You can still figure out who spit on something without a dragnet of ai and facial recognition being applied to every resident. That way you don’t have to hassle a blind lady to formally explain why someone bringing her groceries is using her key fob. To find the guy who spits, you can just rewind the tape.
  - cookieperson 3y ago
    It is overzealous. Imagine if every minor crime or social faux pas you've ever committed was logged, stored to disk, and accessible to various for profit 3rd parties. Little bit dystopian. Middle and upper class people can pay the fines and fees. It's the lower class who end up in prison or homeless.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      How many people are spitting in the hallway of the place they live or visit? I certainly could pay any fine that would be assessed, because that fine would be assessed zero times. If you’re in a living situation where neighbors are regularly spitting in the common areas, I can understand the appeal of a system that would bring that to an end.
      - cookieperson 3y ago
        How many kids played ding ding ditch as a kid? How many teenagers stole a pack of gum as a dare? How many drunk college kids peed on a tree in a public place? Should that kid get a citation? Should that kid end up in small claims court? Should that student be a sex offender and serve time as such? We all agree these things are crimes and people shouldn't do them. But people do stupid crap all the time and US already incarcerates more of it's people than any other country in the world. It's a slippery slope in my mind.
gotoeleven 3y ago
According to the article, it is racist to use cameras to catch people spitting in the hallways because apparently people of color spit in hallways more often than people of non-color. So enforcing the rule against hallway spitting is racist. This is the same logic that is used to justify not enforcing shoplifting or vagrancy laws in san francisco and other places. The fundamental question is whether we as a society are allowed to enforce any standards of behavior even if they end up having racial disparities in enforcement. The solution that is fashionable right now--to just not apply rules to people of color--seems more racist than holding people of color to the same standard as everyone else.
- cookieperson 3y ago
  Ignore race. Should amazon drivers be fired for not peeing in jugs, aka using a public restroom, to follow AI planned routes? What about Pepsi drivers taking unsanctioned 5 min breaks because they have a pounding headache? How about having all your activities monitored as you cross the street so ads target your cellphone with low quality food to increase revenue but leading to worse health and inevitably keeping your poor? Should land lords be allowed to catch people spitting in the hallway, sure, but there's a lot more real problems associated with this kind of technology that has and will continue to increase wealth inequality. If you really think about it... It's almost the perfect tool for it.
  - hiatus 3y ago
    So what's the suggestion here? Put the cat back in the bag? Technology will continue to evolve, society has and can continue to put in place barriers for specific applications of technology. The same tech used for the Pepsi driver's "unsanctioned break" is also the same tech that provides for their federally-mandated rest periods.
    - cookieperson 3y ago
      No the answer is for workers rights to exist in America and for us to regulate how machines programmed by people treat people. There's a human component to work done by humans.
samstave 3y ago
F everything about this. I think it’s a shame that we have billions of cameras because we have conditioned society to be fearful, thus compliant to surveillance tools like this, and so many others. I think employers should have to disclose every method manner and technology used to surveil their employees. I’m coming to add value to your company, not blindly give up ALL of my rights.
oh_sigh 3y ago
The article claims that the evidence security cameras reduces crime is debatable, but the linked article is merely whether the presence of cameras reduces crime. A more important, direct effect of the cameras would be helping evict criminals from the housing, which surely would have an effect on the amount of crime happening there.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  It is pretty safe to say that cameras do not prevent crime by themselves; they are so common that everyone has gotten used to them, reducing the deterrent effect; and the response times from watching CCTV are too long to prevent anything in the moment. Preventing crime has more to do with social and architectural decisions, like expanding visibility, removing chokepoints, and promoting more activity near a given space. The problem is that you can’t demolish all the public housing built poorly in the US and replace it at a reasonable cost.
  - oh_sigh 3y ago
    I agree completely, but another good way of preventing crime is to remove habitual criminals from the space. Cameras can help do that by providing evidence of their crimes for their removal.
    - bobthepanda 3y ago
      Cameras have existed in public housing for multiple decades at this point. If the theory is that this is a process that works, it’s not effective or scalable enough given that public housing remains dangerous. The new thing is that AI makes all of this less tedious, but I’m skeptical this will put a serious dent in the problem.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
Sometimes these well-meaning concern for the poor ends up actually hurting the poor more. Poor people also want to live in housing that doesn’t have people spitting all the time. They want to live in a relatively secure environment. Poor people also want to feel safe. In the name of caring about poor people, a lot of well-meaning people are basically enabling the oppression of poor people.
- gloryjulio 3y ago
  It's the same situation in the education. You get rid of the faster track for talented students, the poor would have even less avenues to advance, the rich are unfazed because they can afford to move and they always have private tutors.
incone123 3y ago
I used to live in a development that was going downhill with residents dumping garbage and so on. The management company were too cheap to put any cameras in, never mind an AI.
varelse 3y ago
[dead]
tiku 3y ago
Public housing is also responsible for cleaning it up ,replacement of stolen items etc. As a tennant you should be happy people are being held accountable for their actions.
- DoItToMe81 3y ago
  Spitting like this is disgusting behavior, but I think living in a mass surveillance state where automated systems flag your behavior is far worse.
tpoacher 3y ago
Prof. Pete Fussey from the University of Essex (where I also work) has some really insightful talks on the topic of surveillance. Here is a nice videolecture he gave that I randomly happened to watch recently. It's 25mins long and really good food for thought; it's a great introduction to the topic. https://panopto.essex.ac.uk/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=a5804192-9aa6-44fa-acbd-af400098bafb https://panopto.essex.ac.uk/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=a58... (thankfully this one is open-access ... hopefully sharing on HN won't bring the university's server down, hahah)
- thunkshift1 3y ago
  Tldw..?
  - tpoacher 3y ago
    tl;dw: surveillance has many forms, many of which not obvious in modern society; most political arguments for more surveillance don't really hold once you examine the evidence; surveillance isn't a panacea for crime prevention; and there are significant consequences to consider, which go beyond the act of surveillance itself (e.g. chilling effects in a "panopticon" society).
MagicMoonlight 3y ago
Oh no how awful, the people who ruin the neighborhood are being targeted for committing crimes.
- 3np 3y ago
  What examples of committed crime do you see mentioned?
ssss11 3y ago
There are clearly two camps of comments here - those in favour of using surveillance and AI to stop any crime incl. minor things like spitting, and those who are opposed to mass surveillance and AI for tracking people in public spaces. I’m in camp two. What organisations are working to walk back all this surveillance? How do I get involved? Are any global (not just US based)?

121 points by dxs 3y ago

Original reporting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/05/16/surveillance-cameras-public-housing/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/05/16/surveilla...

3np 3y ago
OP is really just a polarized rewrite of this, with some inacurracies sprinkled in and dystopic illsutration instead of footage and photos. @dang, can link be replaced with this?
- ronsor 3y ago
  Petapixel is obviously trying to get more people outraged over AI-anything, as they do repeatedly [0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35715432 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35715432
- nixass 3y ago
  Discussion is already underway based on OP's link, why change it? Submit your own thread and continue there if you want
  - 3np 3y ago
    I agree now; wasn't the case when the comment you're replying to was made.

GaggiX 3y ago

The choice of using AI generated images in this article is interesting. (If there are no AI generated images anymore, probably Dang changed the link to the Washington Post)

whitemary 3y ago

[flagged]

iinnPP 3y ago

"One resident was recorded spitting in the hallway" Im sure this wasn't the only thing used for the eviction but if it was that is clearly over the line. With that being said, the behavior is disgusting and if I was in a building dealing with such, I wouldn't feel bad to see them go. Having lived in such a situation before, I could find globs of spit, blood, and who knows what else on elevator buttons, door handles, mailboxes, and entry buzzers. It's disgusting and incredibly unhealthy. It's also discrimination towards people with germ related phobias or disorders.

dghlsakjg 3y ago
You can still figure out who spit on something without a dragnet of ai and facial recognition being applied to every resident. That way you don’t have to hassle a blind lady to formally explain why someone bringing her groceries is using her key fob. To find the guy who spits, you can just rewind the tape.
- cookieperson 3y ago
  It is overzealous. Imagine if every minor crime or social faux pas you've ever committed was logged, stored to disk, and accessible to various for profit 3rd parties. Little bit dystopian. Middle and upper class people can pay the fines and fees. It's the lower class who end up in prison or homeless.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    How many people are spitting in the hallway of the place they live or visit? I certainly could pay any fine that would be assessed, because that fine would be assessed zero times. If you’re in a living situation where neighbors are regularly spitting in the common areas, I can understand the appeal of a system that would bring that to an end.
    - cookieperson 3y ago
      How many kids played ding ding ditch as a kid? How many teenagers stole a pack of gum as a dare? How many drunk college kids peed on a tree in a public place? Should that kid get a citation? Should that kid end up in small claims court? Should that student be a sex offender and serve time as such? We all agree these things are crimes and people shouldn't do them. But people do stupid crap all the time and US already incarcerates more of it's people than any other country in the world. It's a slippery slope in my mind.

gotoeleven 3y ago

According to the article, it is racist to use cameras to catch people spitting in the hallways because apparently people of color spit in hallways more often than people of non-color. So enforcing the rule against hallway spitting is racist. This is the same logic that is used to justify not enforcing shoplifting or vagrancy laws in san francisco and other places. The fundamental question is whether we as a society are allowed to enforce any standards of behavior even if they end up having racial disparities in enforcement. The solution that is fashionable right now--to just not apply rules to people of color--seems more racist than holding people of color to the same standard as everyone else.

cookieperson 3y ago
Ignore race. Should amazon drivers be fired for not peeing in jugs, aka using a public restroom, to follow AI planned routes? What about Pepsi drivers taking unsanctioned 5 min breaks because they have a pounding headache? How about having all your activities monitored as you cross the street so ads target your cellphone with low quality food to increase revenue but leading to worse health and inevitably keeping your poor? Should land lords be allowed to catch people spitting in the hallway, sure, but there's a lot more real problems associated with this kind of technology that has and will continue to increase wealth inequality. If you really think about it... It's almost the perfect tool for it.
- hiatus 3y ago
  So what's the suggestion here? Put the cat back in the bag? Technology will continue to evolve, society has and can continue to put in place barriers for specific applications of technology. The same tech used for the Pepsi driver's "unsanctioned break" is also the same tech that provides for their federally-mandated rest periods.
  - cookieperson 3y ago
    No the answer is for workers rights to exist in America and for us to regulate how machines programmed by people treat people. There's a human component to work done by humans.

samstave 3y ago

F everything about this. I think it’s a shame that we have billions of cameras because we have conditioned society to be fearful, thus compliant to surveillance tools like this, and so many others. I think employers should have to disclose every method manner and technology used to surveil their employees. I’m coming to add value to your company, not blindly give up ALL of my rights.

oh_sigh 3y ago

The article claims that the evidence security cameras reduces crime is debatable, but the linked article is merely whether the presence of cameras reduces crime. A more important, direct effect of the cameras would be helping evict criminals from the housing, which surely would have an effect on the amount of crime happening there.

bobthepanda 3y ago
It is pretty safe to say that cameras do not prevent crime by themselves; they are so common that everyone has gotten used to them, reducing the deterrent effect; and the response times from watching CCTV are too long to prevent anything in the moment. Preventing crime has more to do with social and architectural decisions, like expanding visibility, removing chokepoints, and promoting more activity near a given space. The problem is that you can’t demolish all the public housing built poorly in the US and replace it at a reasonable cost.
- oh_sigh 3y ago
  I agree completely, but another good way of preventing crime is to remove habitual criminals from the space. Cameras can help do that by providing evidence of their crimes for their removal.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    Cameras have existed in public housing for multiple decades at this point. If the theory is that this is a process that works, it’s not effective or scalable enough given that public housing remains dangerous. The new thing is that AI makes all of this less tedious, but I’m skeptical this will put a serious dent in the problem.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago

Sometimes these well-meaning concern for the poor ends up actually hurting the poor more. Poor people also want to live in housing that doesn’t have people spitting all the time. They want to live in a relatively secure environment. Poor people also want to feel safe. In the name of caring about poor people, a lot of well-meaning people are basically enabling the oppression of poor people.

gloryjulio 3y ago
It's the same situation in the education. You get rid of the faster track for talented students, the poor would have even less avenues to advance, the rich are unfazed because they can afford to move and they always have private tutors.

incone123 3y ago

I used to live in a development that was going downhill with residents dumping garbage and so on. The management company were too cheap to put any cameras in, never mind an AI.

varelse 3y ago

[dead]

tiku 3y ago

Public housing is also responsible for cleaning it up ,replacement of stolen items etc. As a tennant you should be happy people are being held accountable for their actions.

DoItToMe81 3y ago
Spitting like this is disgusting behavior, but I think living in a mass surveillance state where automated systems flag your behavior is far worse.

tpoacher 3y ago

Prof. Pete Fussey from the University of Essex (where I also work) has some really insightful talks on the topic of surveillance. Here is a nice videolecture he gave that I randomly happened to watch recently. It's 25mins long and really good food for thought; it's a great introduction to the topic. https://panopto.essex.ac.uk/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=a5804192-9aa6-44fa-acbd-af400098bafb https://panopto.essex.ac.uk/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=a58... (thankfully this one is open-access ... hopefully sharing on HN won't bring the university's server down, hahah)

thunkshift1 3y ago
Tldw..?
- tpoacher 3y ago
  tl;dw: surveillance has many forms, many of which not obvious in modern society; most political arguments for more surveillance don't really hold once you examine the evidence; surveillance isn't a panacea for crime prevention; and there are significant consequences to consider, which go beyond the act of surveillance itself (e.g. chilling effects in a "panopticon" society).

MagicMoonlight 3y ago

Oh no how awful, the people who ruin the neighborhood are being targeted for committing crimes.

3np 3y ago
What examples of committed crime do you see mentioned?

ssss11 3y ago

There are clearly two camps of comments here - those in favour of using surveillance and AI to stop any crime incl. minor things like spitting, and those who are opposed to mass surveillance and AI for tracking people in public spaces. I’m in camp two. What organisations are working to walk back all this surveillance? How do I get involved? Are any global (not just US based)?