4 ms·

I encourage people making snap comments to read at least one entire paragraph of the article: > “We’re going to have supervision,” Ellison said. “Every police

by koolba 1y ago

I encourage people making snap comments to read at least one entire paragraph of the article: > “We’re going to have supervision,” Ellison said. “Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times, and if there’s a problem, AI will report that problem and report it to the appropriate person. Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.” I'd say I'm about as much against the modern surveillance state as the next codger, but that doesn't mean I don't understand its implications. People do act differently when they know they are being watched. Even more so when they know they are being recorded. There's still quite a bit of federation in that each store or home has its own cameras, and chaining them together to get an end-to-end view of a series of events is still manual. But that won't be like that forever. Whether we like it or not, that's only going to get easier.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> People do act differently when they know they are being watched I really want to see more evidence for this. People act differently when they face consequences. More surveillance without enforcement wouldn’t be expected to positively change behaviour.
- flenserboy 1y ago
  behavior will only get worse once people figure out that enforcement will either be entirely selective (based on the friends of whoever controls the programming) or entirely arbitrary. people will wish for anarcho-tyranny.
  - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
    This. All that will happen is that if you come to the wrong person's attention your 'record' will be checked and consequences leveled. Too much happens in the world for our system to punish everyone. But to be able to selectively punish whoever you want at the push of a button, that is power. Maybe you didn't do anything. But your kids? Your business partners? Someone did something, if we record/save everything and look closely. Even if you are perfect we can make you a pariah if it get's known that anyone around you risks themselves/their children getting backlash for associating with you.
- WickyNilliams 1y ago
  It has a name: chilling effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect
- gspetr 1y ago
  Just ask GPT, the awareness of being observed significantly impacts behavior even in rather primitive animals: Research has demonstrated these behavioral changes in various species, including: Primates: Monkeys and apes often alter their social interactions and grooming behaviors when they know they are being observed by humans or other primates. Birds: Studies have shown that birds may change their foraging behavior when they detect human presence, often becoming more cautious. Fish: Some fish species exhibit changes in swimming patterns and social behavior when they sense they are being watched. These behavioral adaptations are thought to be evolutionary responses that help animals avoid predation and enhance their survival in the wild.
add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
Even if he was sincere about wanting to hold the police accountable, hand-waving away that AI will figure it out correctly has not been working out for so far.
- jfyi 1y ago
  The AI is working perfectly for the citizen surveillance use case though. It will provide "reasonable" suspicion on anyone at any time. We have been mired in a surveillance state for a long time now. They now will have the processing power to make sure nobody can keep their head down and slip through the cracks. I imagine it's going to be a rough century.
ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
I just assume that there's a recording of me, at pretty much all times. I have always acted as if I was under scrutiny, anyway, so it's not been that big a deal, but it is annoying, to have it as a fact of life; as opposed to a personal choice for living. Even when people are doing stuff like browsing pr0n, there's likely to be someone paying attention. Maybe not like those silly spam emails, but they know that we watched dwarf pr0n.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > just assume that there's a recording of me, at pretty much all times. I have always acted as if I was under scrutiny Have you ever taken any civic action?
  - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
    I assume you mean like demonstrations and whatnot. Not especially. I tend to roll up my sleeves and work in the shade. I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm just saying it's a thing; no matter what we think of it.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > assume you mean like demonstrations and whatnot Not necessarily. Broadly. Advocacy, petitioning, calling, electioneering, drafting, lobbying, organising, et cetera. A civically inactive citizenry frankly doesn’t have that much to lose from surveillance. Someone failing to exercise their political rights (EDIT: leaving them unexercised) pretty clearly communicates the value they place in them.
      - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
        > Someone failing to exercise their political rights I see what you did, there... I tend to get a lot done. Not really into the whole "sound and fury" thing. I like to actually have results.
everdrive 1y ago
> and if there’s a problem, AI will report that problem and report it to the appropriate person. The long march of us making terrible decisions with technology continues. I'm not sure how to get away from it.
- ddq 1y ago
  We stop collaborating. Technologists, engineers, and support staff make this machine run. It must be made personally infeasible to continue contributing to our own shortsighted destruction. The incentive structure can and must be changed.
  - andsoitis 1y ago
    > We stop collaborating. Technologists, engineers, and support staff make this machine run. "We" don't all view the world through the same lens. And moreover not on all matters. Your framing is erroneous, which leads to incorrect assumptions and strategy.
    - computerthings 1y ago
      [dead]
  - tencentshill 1y ago
    Then they'll outsource the work to someone more desperate than you.
    - atmavatar 1y ago
      That's a cop-out. It may very well be true that in some cases, a bad actor asking you to do a bad thing X will simply find someone else to do it. However, consider the following: * If there were someone more desperate than you and willing to do X, they would demand lower compensation, and the bad actor wouldn't even be talking to you. * By saying no, you are inherently making bad thing X more expensive, because said bad actor has to spend more resources finding someone else to do it. * Saying no gives cover for your peers who disagree with X to also say no. * The person said bad actor finally finds to do X will inherently have more leverage to ask for greater compensation due to the fact that you, by saying no, have shrunk the pool of people capable of doing X. * If enough people say no, said bad actor may never find someone both capable of doing X and willing to do it for the price point the bad actor is willing/able to pay. I don't turn down jobs I disagree with because I necessarily believe it will stop those jobs from happening. I'm satisfied enough with keeping my conscience clear and knowing I made the job a little harder to accomplish.
Paratoner 1y ago
> Whether we like it or not, Seems to be an awful lot of that recently to justify anything, from mass surveillance to crypto fascism. "Its just how things are guys, law of nature!". As citizens of a civilized society, we collectively get to shape and orient how legislation is put into practice. But ofc, if all you and people like you have to offer is pre-deterministic fallacies, then we are indeed screwed.
constantcrying 1y ago
If you read the article it actually outlines how Ellison views the connection between AI and surveillance. Police surveillance is just one part, combining different data sources and analyzing them through AI is how he envisions law enforcement to function. That cops aren't above that is perfectly coherent with that.
cptaj 1y ago
We do get a say on whether we like it or not. You CAN just decide to uphold privacy rights. We make the laws
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
burkaman 1y ago
> People do act differently when they know they are being watched. Even more so when they know they are being recorded. Police (in the US) demonstrably do not care that they're being recorded and don't act any differently.
FarMcKon 1y ago
Great, please apply this to yourself, and livestream all of the time, leave the rest of us out of this. People don't have one standard of behavior. I won't tell my kid jokes, I tell my wife. I won't complain about people in public, the way I vent to my sister (who gets it is just me venting, not how I feel all the time". I am not going to speak to a cop as I'm getting a speeding ticket, they way I will talk to one who is harassing a friend at a parade. I won't talk to / about a co-worker in a meeting, the way I talk to someone he just (rightly, but very meanly) chewed out, and who needs a boss who listens, or will I talk to him in a meeting the way I will (a tad later) chew him out for making a coworker cry. This take is so naive and emotionally / socially unintelligent about human behavior in various situations.
bsenftner 1y ago
Video AI fraud is going to skyrocket, and you know there will be service organizations that cater to this "consumer need". Ellison is a short sighted thinker, opening Pandora's Box.
zasz 1y ago
You're naive if you think cops won't find a way to hide the footage or simply refuse. They already find plenty of excuses not to release body cam footage: https://www.npr.org/2023/12/31/1222337130/bodycam-footage-was-supposed-to-reform-policing-if-the-public-can-get-a-hold-of- https://www.npr.org/2023/12/31/1222337130/bodycam-footage-wa...
ActionHank 1y ago
"Please read the full quote it makes the whole thing make more sense and is just generally better" It's really not.
lapcat 1y ago
Cameras on police are mostly irrelevant. This has been proved repeatedly, at least as far back as Rodney King in 1992. We saw the video of the police beating Rodney King, but the police were nonetheless protected by the legal system. It's extremely rare for police to suffer consequences from their behavior. Any minor transgression from most people will be punished severely. Even the worst transgression from powerful people will be forgiven. That's how our system works. Don't ever think that Orwellian surveillance will put everyone on a level playing field. As an ultra-powerful person, Larry Ellison is well aware of this.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Cameras on police are mostly irrelevant Not really. In "a randomized controlled trial involving more than 400 police officers in Las Vegas, Nevada...officers equipped with body-worn cameras generated fewer complaints and use of force reports relative to officers without cameras. BWC officers also made more arrests and issued more citations than their non-BWC counterparts" [1]. More broadly, "there remains substantial uncertainty about whether BWCs can reduce officer use of force, but the variation in effects suggests there may be conditions in which BWC could be effective" [2]. ("Restricting officer discretion in turning on and off BWCs may reduce police use of force," and while "BWCs may reduce the number of citizen complaints against police officers...it is unclear why complaints decline.") [1] https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol108/iss3/3/ https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol108/is... [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356344/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356344/
  - lapcat 1y ago
    > [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356344/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356344/ "Our meta‐analysis of 30 studies and 116 effects of police use of BWCs finds that this technology produces few clear or consistent impacts on police or citizen behaviors."
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      Overall, the effects are unclear. Drill in and there is statistical significance. It's not fair to say it's irrelevant, because we do have cases where it works. There are just more confounding variables than we've given attention to.
fakedang 1y ago
> People do act differently when they know they are being watched. Even more so when they know they are being recorded. London is the most surveilled city in the world outside China, in terms of the number of intelligent cameras they have around the city, yet that does not stop crime from being significantly reduced.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > yet that does not stop crime from being significantly reduced Source? (I'm inclined to agree with you. Hence my desire for substantiation.)
  - fakedang 1y ago
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/380963/london-crime-rate/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/380963/london-crime-rate... COVID had a bigger impact on crime lol. I don't trust the numbers from the London Mayor's office when Sadiq Khan tries to skew and skewer numbers in various ways to his advantage. I do trust my rich Arab friends though, when they tell me they're not visiting London anymore for summers because they've been mugged.
black6 1y ago
> People do act differently when they know they are being watched. Even more so when they know they are being recorded. There is a whole genre of short form and streaming videos where the subject films himself violating social norms and breaking the law. The majority of perpetrators do not care.

by koolba 1y ago

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> People do act differently when they know they are being watched I really want to see more evidence for this. People act differently when they face consequences. More surveillance without enforcement wouldn’t be expected to positively change behaviour.

flenserboy 1y ago
behavior will only get worse once people figure out that enforcement will either be entirely selective (based on the friends of whoever controls the programming) or entirely arbitrary. people will wish for anarcho-tyranny.
- _DeadFred_ 1y ago
  This. All that will happen is that if you come to the wrong person's attention your 'record' will be checked and consequences leveled. Too much happens in the world for our system to punish everyone. But to be able to selectively punish whoever you want at the push of a button, that is power. Maybe you didn't do anything. But your kids? Your business partners? Someone did something, if we record/save everything and look closely. Even if you are perfect we can make you a pariah if it get's known that anyone around you risks themselves/their children getting backlash for associating with you.
WickyNilliams 1y ago
It has a name: chilling effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect
gspetr 1y ago
Just ask GPT, the awareness of being observed significantly impacts behavior even in rather primitive animals: Research has demonstrated these behavioral changes in various species, including: Primates: Monkeys and apes often alter their social interactions and grooming behaviors when they know they are being observed by humans or other primates. Birds: Studies have shown that birds may change their foraging behavior when they detect human presence, often becoming more cautious. Fish: Some fish species exhibit changes in swimming patterns and social behavior when they sense they are being watched. These behavioral adaptations are thought to be evolutionary responses that help animals avoid predation and enhance their survival in the wild.

add-sub-mul-div 1y ago

Even if he was sincere about wanting to hold the police accountable, hand-waving away that AI will figure it out correctly has not been working out for so far.

jfyi 1y ago
The AI is working perfectly for the citizen surveillance use case though. It will provide "reasonable" suspicion on anyone at any time. We have been mired in a surveillance state for a long time now. They now will have the processing power to make sure nobody can keep their head down and slip through the cracks. I imagine it's going to be a rough century.

ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago

I just assume that there's a recording of me, at pretty much all times. I have always acted as if I was under scrutiny, anyway, so it's not been that big a deal, but it is annoying, to have it as a fact of life; as opposed to a personal choice for living. Even when people are doing stuff like browsing pr0n, there's likely to be someone paying attention. Maybe not like those silly spam emails, but they know that we watched dwarf pr0n.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> just assume that there's a recording of me, at pretty much all times. I have always acted as if I was under scrutiny Have you ever taken any civic action?
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
  I assume you mean like demonstrations and whatnot. Not especially. I tend to roll up my sleeves and work in the shade. I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm just saying it's a thing; no matter what we think of it.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > assume you mean like demonstrations and whatnot Not necessarily. Broadly. Advocacy, petitioning, calling, electioneering, drafting, lobbying, organising, et cetera. A civically inactive citizenry frankly doesn’t have that much to lose from surveillance. Someone failing to exercise their political rights (EDIT: leaving them unexercised) pretty clearly communicates the value they place in them.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
      > Someone failing to exercise their political rights I see what you did, there... I tend to get a lot done. Not really into the whole "sound and fury" thing. I like to actually have results.

everdrive 1y ago

> and if there’s a problem, AI will report that problem and report it to the appropriate person. The long march of us making terrible decisions with technology continues. I'm not sure how to get away from it.

ddq 1y ago
We stop collaborating. Technologists, engineers, and support staff make this machine run. It must be made personally infeasible to continue contributing to our own shortsighted destruction. The incentive structure can and must be changed.
- andsoitis 1y ago
  > We stop collaborating. Technologists, engineers, and support staff make this machine run. "We" don't all view the world through the same lens. And moreover not on all matters. Your framing is erroneous, which leads to incorrect assumptions and strategy.
  - computerthings 1y ago
    [dead]
- tencentshill 1y ago
  Then they'll outsource the work to someone more desperate than you.
  - atmavatar 1y ago
    That's a cop-out. It may very well be true that in some cases, a bad actor asking you to do a bad thing X will simply find someone else to do it. However, consider the following: * If there were someone more desperate than you and willing to do X, they would demand lower compensation, and the bad actor wouldn't even be talking to you. * By saying no, you are inherently making bad thing X more expensive, because said bad actor has to spend more resources finding someone else to do it. * Saying no gives cover for your peers who disagree with X to also say no. * The person said bad actor finally finds to do X will inherently have more leverage to ask for greater compensation due to the fact that you, by saying no, have shrunk the pool of people capable of doing X. * If enough people say no, said bad actor may never find someone both capable of doing X and willing to do it for the price point the bad actor is willing/able to pay. I don't turn down jobs I disagree with because I necessarily believe it will stop those jobs from happening. I'm satisfied enough with keeping my conscience clear and knowing I made the job a little harder to accomplish.

Paratoner 1y ago

> Whether we like it or not, Seems to be an awful lot of that recently to justify anything, from mass surveillance to crypto fascism. "Its just how things are guys, law of nature!". As citizens of a civilized society, we collectively get to shape and orient how legislation is put into practice. But ofc, if all you and people like you have to offer is pre-deterministic fallacies, then we are indeed screwed.

constantcrying 1y ago

If you read the article it actually outlines how Ellison views the connection between AI and surveillance. Police surveillance is just one part, combining different data sources and analyzing them through AI is how he envisions law enforcement to function. That cops aren't above that is perfectly coherent with that.

cptaj 1y ago

We do get a say on whether we like it or not. You CAN just decide to uphold privacy rights. We make the laws

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

burkaman 1y ago

> People do act differently when they know they are being watched. Even more so when they know they are being recorded. Police (in the US) demonstrably do not care that they're being recorded and don't act any differently.

FarMcKon 1y ago

Great, please apply this to yourself, and livestream all of the time, leave the rest of us out of this. People don't have one standard of behavior. I won't tell my kid jokes, I tell my wife. I won't complain about people in public, the way I vent to my sister (who gets it is just me venting, not how I feel all the time". I am not going to speak to a cop as I'm getting a speeding ticket, they way I will talk to one who is harassing a friend at a parade. I won't talk to / about a co-worker in a meeting, the way I talk to someone he just (rightly, but very meanly) chewed out, and who needs a boss who listens, or will I talk to him in a meeting the way I will (a tad later) chew him out for making a coworker cry. This take is so naive and emotionally / socially unintelligent about human behavior in various situations.

bsenftner 1y ago

Video AI fraud is going to skyrocket, and you know there will be service organizations that cater to this "consumer need". Ellison is a short sighted thinker, opening Pandora's Box.

zasz 1y ago

You're naive if you think cops won't find a way to hide the footage or simply refuse. They already find plenty of excuses not to release body cam footage: https://www.npr.org/2023/12/31/1222337130/bodycam-footage-was-supposed-to-reform-policing-if-the-public-can-get-a-hold-of- https://www.npr.org/2023/12/31/1222337130/bodycam-footage-wa...

ActionHank 1y ago

"Please read the full quote it makes the whole thing make more sense and is just generally better" It's really not.

lapcat 1y ago

Cameras on police are mostly irrelevant. This has been proved repeatedly, at least as far back as Rodney King in 1992. We saw the video of the police beating Rodney King, but the police were nonetheless protected by the legal system. It's extremely rare for police to suffer consequences from their behavior. Any minor transgression from most people will be punished severely. Even the worst transgression from powerful people will be forgiven. That's how our system works. Don't ever think that Orwellian surveillance will put everyone on a level playing field. As an ultra-powerful person, Larry Ellison is well aware of this.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Cameras on police are mostly irrelevant Not really. In "a randomized controlled trial involving more than 400 police officers in Las Vegas, Nevada...officers equipped with body-worn cameras generated fewer complaints and use of force reports relative to officers without cameras. BWC officers also made more arrests and issued more citations than their non-BWC counterparts" [1]. More broadly, "there remains substantial uncertainty about whether BWCs can reduce officer use of force, but the variation in effects suggests there may be conditions in which BWC could be effective" [2]. ("Restricting officer discretion in turning on and off BWCs may reduce police use of force," and while "BWCs may reduce the number of citizen complaints against police officers...it is unclear why complaints decline.") [1] https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol108/iss3/3/ https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol108/is... [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356344/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356344/
- lapcat 1y ago
  > [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356344/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356344/ "Our meta‐analysis of 30 studies and 116 effects of police use of BWCs finds that this technology produces few clear or consistent impacts on police or citizen behaviors."
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    Overall, the effects are unclear. Drill in and there is statistical significance. It's not fair to say it's irrelevant, because we do have cases where it works. There are just more confounding variables than we've given attention to.

fakedang 1y ago

> People do act differently when they know they are being watched. Even more so when they know they are being recorded. London is the most surveilled city in the world outside China, in terms of the number of intelligent cameras they have around the city, yet that does not stop crime from being significantly reduced.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> yet that does not stop crime from being significantly reduced Source? (I'm inclined to agree with you. Hence my desire for substantiation.)
- fakedang 1y ago
  https://www.statista.com/statistics/380963/london-crime-rate/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/380963/london-crime-rate... COVID had a bigger impact on crime lol. I don't trust the numbers from the London Mayor's office when Sadiq Khan tries to skew and skewer numbers in various ways to his advantage. I do trust my rich Arab friends though, when they tell me they're not visiting London anymore for summers because they've been mugged.

black6 1y ago

> People do act differently when they know they are being watched. Even more so when they know they are being recorded. There is a whole genre of short form and streaming videos where the subject films himself violating social norms and breaking the law. The majority of perpetrators do not care.