5 ms·

Unpopular opinion: Some time ago I decided to assume that everything I do outside of my house, and some of what I do inside of my house, is public knowledge whi

by firtoz 3y ago

Unpopular opinion: Some time ago I decided to assume that everything I do outside of my house, and some of what I do inside of my house, is public knowledge which can be retrieved reasonably quickly. And if I'm to be targeted directly or indirectly (from appearance, faith, race, or some kind of behaviour or anything else) then I can defend against that. I mean, to prevent or punish when an authority decides to abuse their power of observation (e.g. a stalker decides to follow someone via webcams and harass them), or to try our best to prevent or avoid the conditions that lead a nation state etc to target some groups (or individuals). Also, if some authority decides to [do harmful thing] all people of x religion, it doesn't matter that much if they do it by AI webcams or "report your neighbour to the police" word of mouth.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Sakos 3y ago
Based on the experiences I've heard and read about, you're clearly trivializing the "defend myself" part and don't understand how problematic this is for the people actually affected by the discrimination or targeting you're talking about. It's not as easy as "oh, this is racism, you're in the wrong". These are institutions with comparatively unlimited resources with an interest in defending their behavior and how they treat the people they target. Lives are destroyed over this kind of thing.
- firtoz 3y ago
  So we should try to fix that, for us and everyone else. I know it's hard, but some things are hard. Preventing cameras etc is harder I think, because they can use "think of the children", except maybe in some parts of Europe it seems.
  - xyzzy123 3y ago
    I think you have the right idea but both things can be right. I think it's possible to simultaneously vote against "your worst enemies getting control of the state" and to agitate against the kind of widespread surveillance you wouldn't want your worst enemies to be in control of. I do hear (what I think is) your argument that legislating against ubiquitous surveillance is counter to the inevitable tide of cameras and AI getting crazy cheap, a future where everything is a sensor and processing costs drop to zero. But I think (maybe naively) it's possible we can also have social norms and boundaries around how these things get used.
    - firtoz 3y ago
      Sure, that's fair enough, I just think that they are winning so best prepare our expectations for it. We can still fight, too.
  - hackideiomat 3y ago
    "think of the children" is partially a meme here in germany, there's a song about it, but it focuses mainly on how people wanna seem better by "thinking of the children" and less about using that as argument to negate human rights.
hackideiomat 3y ago
> or to try our best to prevent or avoid the conditions that lead a nation state etc to target some groups (or individuals) So lets give govt (and a private company) all the power they want because we should just work hard so they don't abuse it?
- firtoz 3y ago
  No, that's a slippery slope. I mean, privacy is a lost battle, at least, outside your home, or on the internet.
braden-lk 3y ago
You’ve clearly never pissed off someone with more money and connections than you.
- firtoz 3y ago
  My point is that if they would want to attack me or my community or things like that, especially illegally, or, in ways that would not really be approved by the public, then it would be easier to build up arguments or defences against those than to prevent cameras etc.
  - sharperguy 3y ago
    I think it could easily be harder to defend against an attacker who has the complete ability to surveil and track you at all times.
  - beanjuice 3y ago
    To make a comparison: it is also 'theoretically' easier to teach people not to shoot eachother, rather than to restrict their access to a technology which makes killing very simple. I think keeping the 'activation barrier' to bad actor induced, AI-aided stalking high is a good thing, even if it is only a temporary solution.
  - cool_dude85 3y ago
    What about when they want to attack you for things that would be approved by the public? Imagine a black person in the Jim Crow south doing civil rights organizing having to live in a society with these cameras.
    - firtoz 3y ago
      Let's say the public is against you (both in opinion and legally) and you need to organise your people to try to change their mind. What I'm saying is that it's wise to assume that if you have enemies, they will know a lot about what you are doing and that if you do something in public or maybe even private, they may know what you are doing much more than they could in the past. Is it right, should they do it? Of course not. But are they doing it? It's safer to assume, yes, they are.

by firtoz 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Sakos 3y ago

Based on the experiences I've heard and read about, you're clearly trivializing the "defend myself" part and don't understand how problematic this is for the people actually affected by the discrimination or targeting you're talking about. It's not as easy as "oh, this is racism, you're in the wrong". These are institutions with comparatively unlimited resources with an interest in defending their behavior and how they treat the people they target. Lives are destroyed over this kind of thing.

firtoz 3y ago
So we should try to fix that, for us and everyone else. I know it's hard, but some things are hard. Preventing cameras etc is harder I think, because they can use "think of the children", except maybe in some parts of Europe it seems.
- xyzzy123 3y ago
  I think you have the right idea but both things can be right. I think it's possible to simultaneously vote against "your worst enemies getting control of the state" and to agitate against the kind of widespread surveillance you wouldn't want your worst enemies to be in control of. I do hear (what I think is) your argument that legislating against ubiquitous surveillance is counter to the inevitable tide of cameras and AI getting crazy cheap, a future where everything is a sensor and processing costs drop to zero. But I think (maybe naively) it's possible we can also have social norms and boundaries around how these things get used.
  - firtoz 3y ago
    Sure, that's fair enough, I just think that they are winning so best prepare our expectations for it. We can still fight, too.
- hackideiomat 3y ago
  "think of the children" is partially a meme here in germany, there's a song about it, but it focuses mainly on how people wanna seem better by "thinking of the children" and less about using that as argument to negate human rights.

hackideiomat 3y ago

> or to try our best to prevent or avoid the conditions that lead a nation state etc to target some groups (or individuals) So lets give govt (and a private company) all the power they want because we should just work hard so they don't abuse it?

firtoz 3y ago
No, that's a slippery slope. I mean, privacy is a lost battle, at least, outside your home, or on the internet.

braden-lk 3y ago

You’ve clearly never pissed off someone with more money and connections than you.

firtoz 3y ago
My point is that if they would want to attack me or my community or things like that, especially illegally, or, in ways that would not really be approved by the public, then it would be easier to build up arguments or defences against those than to prevent cameras etc.
- sharperguy 3y ago
  I think it could easily be harder to defend against an attacker who has the complete ability to surveil and track you at all times.
- beanjuice 3y ago
  To make a comparison: it is also 'theoretically' easier to teach people not to shoot eachother, rather than to restrict their access to a technology which makes killing very simple. I think keeping the 'activation barrier' to bad actor induced, AI-aided stalking high is a good thing, even if it is only a temporary solution.
- cool_dude85 3y ago
  What about when they want to attack you for things that would be approved by the public? Imagine a black person in the Jim Crow south doing civil rights organizing having to live in a society with these cameras.
  - firtoz 3y ago
    Let's say the public is against you (both in opinion and legally) and you need to organise your people to try to change their mind. What I'm saying is that it's wise to assume that if you have enemies, they will know a lot about what you are doing and that if you do something in public or maybe even private, they may know what you are doing much more than they could in the past. Is it right, should they do it? Of course not. But are they doing it? It's safer to assume, yes, they are.