3 ms·

>> Regardless of that we all should have cameras running everywhere all the time I would like to opt out of this nightmarish safety hellscape. I never use the

by moate 3y ago

>> Regardless of that we all should have cameras running everywhere all the time I would like to opt out of this nightmarish safety hellscape. I never use the phrase Orwellian because it’s so often misused, but yikes is this some 1984 badthink.

Terr_ 3y ago
I think the distinction is who controls the tools. Everyone having their own cameras is very different from the party controlling cameras around everyone.
- lapetitejort 3y ago
  Sometimes it's both, like in the case of Ring doorbell cameras. I may install a camera and think I'm in control, until my footage in the cloud is subpoenaed without my knowledge for an alleged crime I have nothing to do with.
  - jrussino 3y ago
    I went with a doorbell with local storage (Eufy, in my case) for this very reason. My knowledge of the law here is virtually nonexistent. It seems likely that I could still be subpoenaed to turn over footage under some circumstances. But at least I'm in control of that footage and it's not automatically being given to some third party.
  - bigiain 3y ago
    Ring doorbell cameras don't even need subpoenas. https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/amazons-ring-shared-footage-to-police-without-owners-consent/news-story/90eeb2d1efa4add762f1bc87526cf231 https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/amazons-r... (Although Amazon claim to be "sunsetting" that as of a couple of weeks ago: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/25/1226942087/ring-will-no-longer-allow-police-to-request-users-doorbell-camera-footage https://www.npr.org/2024/01/25/1226942087/ring-will-no-longe... )
- Analemma_ 3y ago
  That's a meaningless distinction in a world with room 641A, rubberstamp FISA warrants, etc. If the party wants the data, it can get it; whose disks it is stored on is an irrelevant implementation detail.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
I held this same opinion until recently but I've come to realize that it only disallows citizens from recording in public -- that is, if this opinion were adopted in policy, the police could use said policy against me to prevent my filming of police activity. I'd also like to opt-out of having cameras everywhere in public but the fact of the matter is they are here to stay. Additionally, most of the cameras which capture your image in public are not cameras which you installed and they're not cameras which you have the authority to remove. Adding your own cameras to the mix is functionally equivalent to exercising your freedom to speak; really, to document, in this context.
- archgoon 3y ago
  David Brin wrote on this in "The Transparent Society". From the Amazon summary: > David Brin is worried, but not just about privacy. He fears that society will overreact to these technologies by restricting the flow of information, frantically enforcing a reign of secrecy. Such measures, he warns, won't really preserve our privacy. Governments, the wealthy, criminals, and the techno-elite will still find ways to watch us. But we'll have fewer ways to watch them. We'll lose the key to a free society: accountability. Note this was published in 1999, so one can argue about how far we went in either direction. I think we mostly ended up with a collective shrug.
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
  At the least we could have legislation to prevent police from creating mass surveillance networks, ie keep the process limited to individuals.
jrussino 3y ago
I don't know about should, but given that cameras and microphones and processors and power and communication are all probably going to continue to get cheaper and smaller and lighter it seems to me that this is nearly inevitable. So the question really should be - how do we adapt to it? How can we try to mitigate the harm (through social, legal, and/or technical means) and steer our changing society closer to a future that we'd actually want to live in?
- bigiain 3y ago
  Yeah, not only are cameras going to get cheaper and smaller and lighter (and way more ubiquitous as a result), but there's other factors to consider too. Face recognition is also getting cheaper and more ubiquitous (and other similar technologies like gait recognition and even skeletal kinematics identification). The privacy implications are astounding. But, as you say, this is all inevitable (I intentionally left out your "nearly" there), and it's a very good question about how that's going to change society and whether we (I) want to live in that.
bigiain 3y ago
And from elsewhere on the HN homepage right now: "Before he was George Orwell, he was Eric Blair, police officer" -- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/05/books/review/george-orwell-burma-sahib-paul-theroux.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/05/books/review/george-orwel... Today's "nightmarish safety hellscape" is brought to you by (amongst others) Toby Roberts, a former technical surveillance officer at the UK's Eastern Region Special's Operations Unit, and the Raspberry Pi Foundation where he's the official "Maker In Residence". -- https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/09/rpi_maker_in_residence_police/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/09/rpi_maker_in_residenc...

by moate 3y ago

Terr_ 3y ago

I think the distinction is who controls the tools. Everyone having their own cameras is very different from the party controlling cameras around everyone.

lapetitejort 3y ago
Sometimes it's both, like in the case of Ring doorbell cameras. I may install a camera and think I'm in control, until my footage in the cloud is subpoenaed without my knowledge for an alleged crime I have nothing to do with.
- jrussino 3y ago
  I went with a doorbell with local storage (Eufy, in my case) for this very reason. My knowledge of the law here is virtually nonexistent. It seems likely that I could still be subpoenaed to turn over footage under some circumstances. But at least I'm in control of that footage and it's not automatically being given to some third party.
- bigiain 3y ago
  Ring doorbell cameras don't even need subpoenas. https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/amazons-ring-shared-footage-to-police-without-owners-consent/news-story/90eeb2d1efa4add762f1bc87526cf231 https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/amazons-r... (Although Amazon claim to be "sunsetting" that as of a couple of weeks ago: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/25/1226942087/ring-will-no-longer-allow-police-to-request-users-doorbell-camera-footage https://www.npr.org/2024/01/25/1226942087/ring-will-no-longe... )
Analemma_ 3y ago
That's a meaningless distinction in a world with room 641A, rubberstamp FISA warrants, etc. If the party wants the data, it can get it; whose disks it is stored on is an irrelevant implementation detail.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago

I held this same opinion until recently but I've come to realize that it only disallows citizens from recording in public -- that is, if this opinion were adopted in policy, the police could use said policy against me to prevent my filming of police activity. I'd also like to opt-out of having cameras everywhere in public but the fact of the matter is they are here to stay. Additionally, most of the cameras which capture your image in public are not cameras which you installed and they're not cameras which you have the authority to remove. Adding your own cameras to the mix is functionally equivalent to exercising your freedom to speak; really, to document, in this context.

archgoon 3y ago
David Brin wrote on this in "The Transparent Society". From the Amazon summary: > David Brin is worried, but not just about privacy. He fears that society will overreact to these technologies by restricting the flow of information, frantically enforcing a reign of secrecy. Such measures, he warns, won't really preserve our privacy. Governments, the wealthy, criminals, and the techno-elite will still find ways to watch us. But we'll have fewer ways to watch them. We'll lose the key to a free society: accountability. Note this was published in 1999, so one can argue about how far we went in either direction. I think we mostly ended up with a collective shrug.
BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
At the least we could have legislation to prevent police from creating mass surveillance networks, ie keep the process limited to individuals.

jrussino 3y ago

I don't know about should, but given that cameras and microphones and processors and power and communication are all probably going to continue to get cheaper and smaller and lighter it seems to me that this is nearly inevitable. So the question really should be - how do we adapt to it? How can we try to mitigate the harm (through social, legal, and/or technical means) and steer our changing society closer to a future that we'd actually want to live in?

bigiain 3y ago
Yeah, not only are cameras going to get cheaper and smaller and lighter (and way more ubiquitous as a result), but there's other factors to consider too. Face recognition is also getting cheaper and more ubiquitous (and other similar technologies like gait recognition and even skeletal kinematics identification). The privacy implications are astounding. But, as you say, this is all inevitable (I intentionally left out your "nearly" there), and it's a very good question about how that's going to change society and whether we (I) want to live in that.

bigiain 3y ago

And from elsewhere on the HN homepage right now: "Before he was George Orwell, he was Eric Blair, police officer" -- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/05/books/review/george-orwell-burma-sahib-paul-theroux.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/05/books/review/george-orwel... Today's "nightmarish safety hellscape" is brought to you by (amongst others) Toby Roberts, a former technical surveillance officer at the UK's Eastern Region Special's Operations Unit, and the Raspberry Pi Foundation where he's the official "Maker In Residence". -- https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/09/rpi_maker_in_residence_police/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/09/rpi_maker_in_residenc...