3 ms·

If it was noninvasive and already pervasive, yes. It’s not that I like facial scanning. It’s that it is pervasive and can do nothing about it.

saulpw 2y ago
OTOH maybe we shouldn't make it too easy for them by giving in without any resistance whatsoever. Fight this to delay or derail the next thing which will be even more.
- prepend 2y ago
  It’s not like we chose. Cameras and transistors are just absurdly cheap and have millions of other purposes. So we’d have to shut down tons of other useful functions to change it. Just like dna sampling will one day be so cheap that air conditioners test for every person and every germ they see. It will be so cheap as hard to stop. I guess we can resist digital stuff making dna cheaper. But we’ll have to stop all the other benefits (real time, targeted anti-virals, etc).
  - simoncion 2y ago
    > So we’d have to shut down tons of other useful functions to change it. What? No. The problem with this stuff is the privacy-invasion aspect. For example, ubiquitous camera installations in public spaces and businesses are 100% fine if they're truly closed-circuit systems that have no storage capability. If all these cameras offer is tele-vision, then there's no privacy problem. So, if this sort of stuff was guaranteed to be used for a purpose that's beneficial to individual clients and the public at large (rather than scraping up pennies by selling the recordings to data brokers and data analysis firms), there'd be no problem at all. The solution becomes clear: make video, audio, still image, biometric, and behavioral data toxic waste. * If a company ever uses such data in any way that's not clearly and conspicuously disclosed in plain English to their clients, fire every executive member of that company and permanently bar each of them from holding any executive or management position ever again. * If a company ever sends any payment (whether monetary, or in goods and/or services rendered) to a company that is (or owns) a data broker, customer/consumer data analysis firm, or similar, then that company is considered to have engaged the services of said company and presumed to be sending the data of their clients to said company. Fire every executive member of that company and permanently bar each of them from holding any executive or management position ever again.
    - prepend 2y ago
      > The solution becomes clear: make video, audio, still image, biometric, and behavioral data toxic waste. This doesn’t seem realistic to me because those data are useful for so many valid purposes and the tech is ubiquitous. So we’d have to regulate and it would be expensive and futile. Your solutions are difficult to enforce (eg, “fire every executive” doesn’t work even in things like Enron or mine disasters).
      - simoncion 2y ago
        > So we’d have to regulate... No shit? You don't say. Seriously, regulations and laws are how you get companies to act against their own best interests. > (eg, “fire every executive” doesn’t work even in things like Enron or mine disasters). You seem to have forgotten the second part of the punishment. I'll quote the punishment again: > [F]ire every executive member of that company and permanently bar each of them from holding any executive or management position ever again. I don't remember any Enron executive being barred from holding any executive or management position ever again. Do you? > Your solutions are difficult to enforce... Oh? Someone comes to the relevant regulator, or Federal law enforcement with evidence of this crime happening. By law, FedGov will be obligated to investigate. Either they corroborate the evidence and deliver the punishment, or they do not and they do nothing. This punishment is so extreme that you will only have to catch a few companies to prevent nearly everyone else from breaking this law. (After all, what executive team would risk decades of each of them getting a seven-to-eight-figure salary just so that a couple of them can get a one-off bonus one or two orders of magnitude smaller?)
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    There are all sorts of things that are cheap and easy, but society considers so dangerous that they are restricted by law. That doesn't stop all ne'er-do-wells, of course, but it stops most.
latexr 2y ago
> If it was noninvasive and already pervasive, yes. That’s circular reasoning. It is all the more reason to oppose this crap today so it does not become pervasive. Think of anything that you don’t like but is pervasive. Don’t you wish the people that came before you would have opposed that a bit harder so you don’t have to deal with it now? The noninvasive part of your argument does matter, but I feel that’s much harder to define as everyone will draw the line somewhere different.
- prepend 2y ago
  I don’t think it’s circular as things become pervasive not because of slippery slope of just a few cameras and then adding more, but because the tech in those cameras became cheap from other trends. In that cameras aren’t cheap inherently, but because chips and storage and power are so cheap it leads to cheap cameras. So people chose all of the other non-camera functions that also led to cheap camera. For dna, I wouldn’t be a fan of just gradually adding dna identifying machines until it’s pervasive. I’d like to not do that. But what I mean is that dna sequencing will become so cheap due to other factors that it will be pervasive to just add id machines to air conditioners or whatever.

saulpw 2y ago

OTOH maybe we shouldn't make it too easy for them by giving in without any resistance whatsoever. Fight this to delay or derail the next thing which will be even more.

prepend 2y ago
It’s not like we chose. Cameras and transistors are just absurdly cheap and have millions of other purposes. So we’d have to shut down tons of other useful functions to change it. Just like dna sampling will one day be so cheap that air conditioners test for every person and every germ they see. It will be so cheap as hard to stop. I guess we can resist digital stuff making dna cheaper. But we’ll have to stop all the other benefits (real time, targeted anti-virals, etc).
- simoncion 2y ago
  > So we’d have to shut down tons of other useful functions to change it. What? No. The problem with this stuff is the privacy-invasion aspect. For example, ubiquitous camera installations in public spaces and businesses are 100% fine if they're truly closed-circuit systems that have no storage capability. If all these cameras offer is tele-vision, then there's no privacy problem. So, if this sort of stuff was guaranteed to be used for a purpose that's beneficial to individual clients and the public at large (rather than scraping up pennies by selling the recordings to data brokers and data analysis firms), there'd be no problem at all. The solution becomes clear: make video, audio, still image, biometric, and behavioral data toxic waste. * If a company ever uses such data in any way that's not clearly and conspicuously disclosed in plain English to their clients, fire every executive member of that company and permanently bar each of them from holding any executive or management position ever again. * If a company ever sends any payment (whether monetary, or in goods and/or services rendered) to a company that is (or owns) a data broker, customer/consumer data analysis firm, or similar, then that company is considered to have engaged the services of said company and presumed to be sending the data of their clients to said company. Fire every executive member of that company and permanently bar each of them from holding any executive or management position ever again.
  - prepend 2y ago
    > The solution becomes clear: make video, audio, still image, biometric, and behavioral data toxic waste. This doesn’t seem realistic to me because those data are useful for so many valid purposes and the tech is ubiquitous. So we’d have to regulate and it would be expensive and futile. Your solutions are difficult to enforce (eg, “fire every executive” doesn’t work even in things like Enron or mine disasters).
    - simoncion 2y ago
      > So we’d have to regulate... No shit? You don't say. Seriously, regulations and laws are how you get companies to act against their own best interests. > (eg, “fire every executive” doesn’t work even in things like Enron or mine disasters). You seem to have forgotten the second part of the punishment. I'll quote the punishment again: > [F]ire every executive member of that company and permanently bar each of them from holding any executive or management position ever again. I don't remember any Enron executive being barred from holding any executive or management position ever again. Do you? > Your solutions are difficult to enforce... Oh? Someone comes to the relevant regulator, or Federal law enforcement with evidence of this crime happening. By law, FedGov will be obligated to investigate. Either they corroborate the evidence and deliver the punishment, or they do not and they do nothing. This punishment is so extreme that you will only have to catch a few companies to prevent nearly everyone else from breaking this law. (After all, what executive team would risk decades of each of them getting a seven-to-eight-figure salary just so that a couple of them can get a one-off bonus one or two orders of magnitude smaller?)
- JohnFen 2y ago
  There are all sorts of things that are cheap and easy, but society considers so dangerous that they are restricted by law. That doesn't stop all ne'er-do-wells, of course, but it stops most.

latexr 2y ago

> If it was noninvasive and already pervasive, yes. That’s circular reasoning. It is all the more reason to oppose this crap today so it does not become pervasive. Think of anything that you don’t like but is pervasive. Don’t you wish the people that came before you would have opposed that a bit harder so you don’t have to deal with it now? The noninvasive part of your argument does matter, but I feel that’s much harder to define as everyone will draw the line somewhere different.

prepend 2y ago
I don’t think it’s circular as things become pervasive not because of slippery slope of just a few cameras and then adding more, but because the tech in those cameras became cheap from other trends. In that cameras aren’t cheap inherently, but because chips and storage and power are so cheap it leads to cheap cameras. So people chose all of the other non-camera functions that also led to cheap camera. For dna, I wouldn’t be a fan of just gradually adding dna identifying machines until it’s pervasive. I’d like to not do that. But what I mean is that dna sequencing will become so cheap due to other factors that it will be pervasive to just add id machines to air conditioners or whatever.