6 ms·
It's so very HN that we get into fits about Google and Facebook and Apple and so on tracking us to make a buck, but the idea of an insurance company deputizing
by lolinder 2y ago
It's so very HN that we get into fits about Google and Facebook and Apple and so on tracking us to make a buck, but the idea of an insurance company deputizing millions of cameras to perform mass surveillance to make a buck is suddenly okay because drivers that make us angry on the road get hurt by it.
The obvious answer to this proposal is that I believe that I have a right to not be monitored and penalized by autonomous algorithms, and I'm not ready to compromise on that right just because some people drive dangerously. All of the same arguments HN will reliably raise against algorithmic anything apply here, but apparently that all goes out the window when cars become involved.
- unshavedyak 2y ago> but the idea of an insurance company deputizing millions of cameras to perform mass surveillance to make a buck is suddenly okay because drivers that make us angry on the road get hurt by it. I'd word it more like drivers who put me and others around me in danger should be punished for driving recklessly.
- lolinder 2y agoFair enough. After all, as we all know, the only reason to object to massive surveillance nets is if you're a criminal who has something to hide. Since I keep the law all that tracking and monitoring won't affect me.
- unshavedyak 2y ago> Fair enough. After all, as we all know, the only reason to object to massive surveillance nets is if you're a criminal who has something to hide Yea, that's the case when i'm submitting a video of a crime being committed. I also submitted video of crimes in my neighborhood being committed (home security cams), is that also an invasion of the criminals privacy?
- try_the_bass 2y agoI mean, you do have to admit that by objecting to "massive surveillance nets", you're actively helping criminals who have things to hide, even if you don't. If you think that's worth it, that's up to you, but you do have to admit that your position helps those with antisocial goals. You'll probably argue that "massive surveillance nets are inherently antisocial", but we both know that's not any more true than saying that "absolute freedom of speech is inherently antisocial". Arguably true, but wholly subjective.
- lolinder 2y agoIt's just an observation: this proposal aimed at penalizing bad drivers gets upvoted and generally supported, but proposals aimed at hunting down child pornographers get attacked as dangerous overreach. "I have nothing to hide" is an invalid argument for E2E encryption backdoors, but it's the correct way to think about a dashcam botnet. It's just an interesting insight into the collective tech consciousness.
- akimbostrawman 2y ago>you do have to admit that by objecting to "massive surveillance nets", you're actively helping criminals who have things to hide This is such a disengenious gaslighting way of framing critic it would make politicians blush. I hope none of your "positions" could ever be used for anything bad ever or its your fault wether you want or not
- photochemsyn 2y agoSorry about this, but a law was just passed making posting anything to a public-facing web site without prior government authorization a serious crime with a five-year forced-labor-camp sentence.
- globular-toast 2y agoThe difference is it's in public. Google et al wants to get into your private life. Nobody is talking about watching you race cars on a private track.
- lolinder 2y agoSo you're okay with police having access to facial recognition cameras on every public street in order to better track down violent criminals?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jonny_eh 2y ago> to make a buck And to make roads safer.
- gWPVhyxPHqvk 2y agoOne of the first things you learn when you get your drivers license is that you don't have the same rights on public roads as you do off the roads, or in private (such as requirements for carrying up-to-date license, breathalyzers, etc).