4 ms·

Here is the good side, recent article headline, "Shocking video shows special needs school worker slamming autistic, nonverbal toddler to the ground then dang

Here is the good side, recent article headline, "Shocking video shows special needs school worker slamming autistic, nonverbal toddler to the ground then dangling him upside down"

jprete 3y ago
What this does is create an entire generation conditioned to believe the camera is the reason they shouldn’t do that.
- throwawaysleep 3y ago
  People have long been doing whatever no matter whether it is moral or not.
- csydas 3y ago
  Yes, I think this part is incredibly important to understand; it's similar to laws where the penalty is a fine; devastating for many people if they get caught, but for those with wealth, it's just the cost of business to do whatever they want. Same with the idea of persistent surveillance -- it's only as good/useful as those who control the surveillance. In the case of authorities who are willing to abuse their power, surveillance does not make you more safe with these authorities, it just means that there is surveillance data they control, and it works for them, not not for you unless they decide to allow that. Recordings get deleted "accidentally" all the time, and for most regulated businesses, at worst it's a small fine and some forms and mandatory training, none of which would make me feel particularly better if the "accidentally deleted" video was the only proof of the authority figures beating me to a pulp. It's the same reason government backdoors can never be a tool "for the good guys"; once it's there, anyone able to pass a correct secret to the backdoor gets in, regardless of their intent or right to be. Surveillance doesn't make us safer by default; it is a tool like any other, and it has it's legitimate uses and illegitimate uses. I don't feel safer if a stranger runs at me in an alley wielding a claw hammer just because I know that claw hammers are usually for construction work; I'm very much so aware that while a nail might survive the impact, my flesh and bone will not fare as well. Same with any surveillance -- I do not see how it's making _me_ safer, it's instead making someone else's job easier to monitor me, and I have no idea who that might be or why they're monitoring me. This isn't to say it's always morally imperative wrong to have some sort of surveillance; I think a closed circuit recording system in a store is maybe frustrating, but I also don't have to go into that particular store I suppose. This does become a problem though once surveillance is everywhere, and even worse, when it's non-secured surveillance tech, so anyone might get at it.
  - paul_funyun 3y ago
    That's the beauty of widespread surveillance and easy bulk storage - there's no reason to give any of the surveilled parties the power to control the data. Camera records the footage and sends it to a centralized storage facility, where it is automatically deleted after 5 years or some other length of time. As long as there's enough storage space for the relevant time frame's worth of footage, there's no reason any person needs to be able to delete it. If it's on a server hundreds of miles away what can some petty bureaucrat do even if they wanted to?
    - csydas 3y ago
      I mean, it's a nice thought, but it does not change the situation I described. The persons with the power of authority determine whether or not the surveillance data can be accessed. In the example I mentioned where the only footage of violence against me by persons is controlled by the persons themselves, what does it matter if it gets sent to S3 with immutability for 10 years? I still can't get that data if they don't want me to, in some countries the legal discovery process might _say_ all parties in a legal dispute must comply with the discovery process, but if one of the parties states they simply don't have the data, the courts can't do much of anything in such cases. (The following statement is not to decry encryption, but more just to show that "deletion" is just an example there are many ways to "lose" such surveillance) What if instead of deleting, we said "could not accesses, whoopsiekittens"? Let's say they do send the data to a centralized storage center, and naturally, they're encrypting all the data they send as per best practices? What exactly would I or anyone in my situation be able to do if the company "lost" the encryption key? Or they retrieve the data, muck a bit with the file to make it unreadable, and then just say "welp, guess just bad luck here"? Unless it's _all open and all accessible_, it just means that those with the surveillance data have the power to use it however they want. Their excuses may be disprovable over time, but how long do you think most reasonable people would believe me if I tried to convince them that every excuse created was an intentional deception? How could I even prove it in most cases? I am not advocating for non-stop surveillance and full open access to that surveillance to be clear; I have not thought what a system like that would look like and I am not able to say how it could work "for everyone", nor do I think it really could. That's not the point, the point is instead that no matter how it's stored, unless everyone has equal access to it, it's still is surveillance that only those who control the surveillance data can use, regardless of what they decide to use it for. Body Cams for police in the US are a perfect example of this -- theoretically, they're for the public to use and for accountability with police, but since the police control the body cam footage and even get to decide that they don't _need_ the body cams at times, it's effectively surveillance that works for them when they want it to, and can be hidden when it works against them.
endominus 3y ago
On the other hand again, an anecdote from my own middle school; one kid shoved another down as they were running through the halls. The person who got shoved fell and broke a tooth. School refused to punish anyone without evidence of wrongdoing (despite the testimony of everyone around at the time). There was a camera in the hallway but conveniently "it was off" and school refused to investigate further. Seeking justice by apportioning more power to those with the incentive to abuse it does not result in a more just system.
ethanbond 3y ago
The good side is what? Now we have salient imagery of an extremely rare occurrence so we can breed into our culture more fear of extremely rare occurrences? There are billions of people on this planet, you can pick any atrocious act and find enough footage to convince a tribe-scale monkey brain that once in a million people event is a Big Problem that we need to be solving. I could imagine there being special carve outs for kids who are unlikely to know something bad is happening or to report it. Doesn’t mean every child needs more surveillance around them.

Here is the good side, recent article headline, "Shocking video shows special needs school worker slamming autistic, nonverbal toddler to the ground then dangling him upside down"

jprete 3y ago

What this does is create an entire generation conditioned to believe the camera is the reason they shouldn’t do that.

throwawaysleep 3y ago
People have long been doing whatever no matter whether it is moral or not.
csydas 3y ago
Yes, I think this part is incredibly important to understand; it's similar to laws where the penalty is a fine; devastating for many people if they get caught, but for those with wealth, it's just the cost of business to do whatever they want. Same with the idea of persistent surveillance -- it's only as good/useful as those who control the surveillance. In the case of authorities who are willing to abuse their power, surveillance does not make you more safe with these authorities, it just means that there is surveillance data they control, and it works for them, not not for you unless they decide to allow that. Recordings get deleted "accidentally" all the time, and for most regulated businesses, at worst it's a small fine and some forms and mandatory training, none of which would make me feel particularly better if the "accidentally deleted" video was the only proof of the authority figures beating me to a pulp. It's the same reason government backdoors can never be a tool "for the good guys"; once it's there, anyone able to pass a correct secret to the backdoor gets in, regardless of their intent or right to be. Surveillance doesn't make us safer by default; it is a tool like any other, and it has it's legitimate uses and illegitimate uses. I don't feel safer if a stranger runs at me in an alley wielding a claw hammer just because I know that claw hammers are usually for construction work; I'm very much so aware that while a nail might survive the impact, my flesh and bone will not fare as well. Same with any surveillance -- I do not see how it's making _me_ safer, it's instead making someone else's job easier to monitor me, and I have no idea who that might be or why they're monitoring me. This isn't to say it's always morally imperative wrong to have some sort of surveillance; I think a closed circuit recording system in a store is maybe frustrating, but I also don't have to go into that particular store I suppose. This does become a problem though once surveillance is everywhere, and even worse, when it's non-secured surveillance tech, so anyone might get at it.
- paul_funyun 3y ago
  That's the beauty of widespread surveillance and easy bulk storage - there's no reason to give any of the surveilled parties the power to control the data. Camera records the footage and sends it to a centralized storage facility, where it is automatically deleted after 5 years or some other length of time. As long as there's enough storage space for the relevant time frame's worth of footage, there's no reason any person needs to be able to delete it. If it's on a server hundreds of miles away what can some petty bureaucrat do even if they wanted to?
  - csydas 3y ago
    I mean, it's a nice thought, but it does not change the situation I described. The persons with the power of authority determine whether or not the surveillance data can be accessed. In the example I mentioned where the only footage of violence against me by persons is controlled by the persons themselves, what does it matter if it gets sent to S3 with immutability for 10 years? I still can't get that data if they don't want me to, in some countries the legal discovery process might _say_ all parties in a legal dispute must comply with the discovery process, but if one of the parties states they simply don't have the data, the courts can't do much of anything in such cases. (The following statement is not to decry encryption, but more just to show that "deletion" is just an example there are many ways to "lose" such surveillance) What if instead of deleting, we said "could not accesses, whoopsiekittens"? Let's say they do send the data to a centralized storage center, and naturally, they're encrypting all the data they send as per best practices? What exactly would I or anyone in my situation be able to do if the company "lost" the encryption key? Or they retrieve the data, muck a bit with the file to make it unreadable, and then just say "welp, guess just bad luck here"? Unless it's _all open and all accessible_, it just means that those with the surveillance data have the power to use it however they want. Their excuses may be disprovable over time, but how long do you think most reasonable people would believe me if I tried to convince them that every excuse created was an intentional deception? How could I even prove it in most cases? I am not advocating for non-stop surveillance and full open access to that surveillance to be clear; I have not thought what a system like that would look like and I am not able to say how it could work "for everyone", nor do I think it really could. That's not the point, the point is instead that no matter how it's stored, unless everyone has equal access to it, it's still is surveillance that only those who control the surveillance data can use, regardless of what they decide to use it for. Body Cams for police in the US are a perfect example of this -- theoretically, they're for the public to use and for accountability with police, but since the police control the body cam footage and even get to decide that they don't _need_ the body cams at times, it's effectively surveillance that works for them when they want it to, and can be hidden when it works against them.

endominus 3y ago

On the other hand again, an anecdote from my own middle school; one kid shoved another down as they were running through the halls. The person who got shoved fell and broke a tooth. School refused to punish anyone without evidence of wrongdoing (despite the testimony of everyone around at the time). There was a camera in the hallway but conveniently "it was off" and school refused to investigate further. Seeking justice by apportioning more power to those with the incentive to abuse it does not result in a more just system.

ethanbond 3y ago

The good side is what? Now we have salient imagery of an extremely rare occurrence so we can breed into our culture more fear of extremely rare occurrences? There are billions of people on this planet, you can pick any atrocious act and find enough footage to convince a tribe-scale monkey brain that once in a million people event is a Big Problem that we need to be solving. I could imagine there being special carve outs for kids who are unlikely to know something bad is happening or to report it. Doesn’t mean every child needs more surveillance around them.