4 ms·

My best guess would be [[Surveillance cameras normalize/denormalize behavior in a way that is easily biased and undemocratic.]] It might e.g. direct the full

My best guess would be [[Surveillance cameras normalize/denormalize behavior in a way that is easily biased and undemocratic.]] It might e.g. direct the full force of law against a drunk urinating on a tree (easy to spot/classify), while tolerating vicious verbal attacks disguised by somewhat subdued body language (missing data/difficult to detect). Letting automated surveillance systems judge people will inevitably influence our own collective judgement.

ctoth 5mo ago
> tolerating vicious verbal attacks disguised by somewhat subdued body language Two people arguing in public, words only, is close to a legal non-event in the US. So I would hope so?
- seethishat 5mo ago
  Until one of them communicates a threat, then it is a criminal matter.
  - stickfigure 5mo ago
    I don't think you're advocating to have our personal conversations continuously monitored whenever outside, but in the context of this thread, that's what it sounds like.
    - nightpool 5mo ago
      No, in the context of the thread it sounds like they're illustrating myrmidon's point about how the selective enforcement of crimes that are easy to catch on camera means that the police have less time (and less inclination, training, norms) for addressing more serious crimes, like interpersonal violence. More broadly, they're not saying that we should make the cameras better to catch more crime, they're saying that when you make cameras the main way you catch crime, you shift the social definition of what crime is to "what cameras can catch".
  - emptybits 5mo ago
    Perhaps, depending on specific intent, credibility, and the nature of harm threatened. But since this is about surveillance, I hope that detection of verbal threats is not a goal of government surveillance because it's difficult to imagine how that could be accomplished without significant loss of privacy or other liberties.
    - saltyoldman 5mo ago
      I can see it in court now. Our AI monitoring system did indeed know about the threat to the building where 800 people died on Sunday. It says: " Agent: Voice to text detected: I have everything ready - all the XXX chemicals are ready in the van and I'm going to park in the 900 S Crap St now" Agent: Thread Level HIGH. Agent: Looking up local codes. Agent: Mayor signed SB-1238 in 2026 - no surveillance devices may be used for audio threat determination. Agent: Threat silenced, but logged. Judge: Oh, that makes sense. Make sure to bag and tag and bill the families for the bags. City Employee: We also know who parked the van, should we arrest them. Judge: No it looks like SB-1238 would forbid us from using this data for the purposes of arrest. I guess send them a thank you letter for testing our laws.
      - ryeats 5mo ago
        This is essentially the Trolley Problem.
      - anigbrowl 5mo ago
        Oh, only 800? Maybe you can pick a larger imaginary number to make me feel really guilty about not wanting to give up my rights to live free of surveillance.
        saltyoldman 5mo ago
        I mean yeah, but I don't need to. These cameras ARE already the result of 9/11.
        foota 5mo ago
  - cucumber3732842 5mo ago
    Pretty much everything is a crime if you do it while blacker or trashier than the local baseline.
  - dmitrygr 5mo ago
    > then it is a criminal matter. In very limited and clearly defined ways only: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2024/08/True-Threats-Guidance-3.pdf https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites...
- myrmidon 5mo ago
  The threshold for a surveillance system to affect societal norms is not necessarily "legal event", and potentially even lower than any observable reaction (from self-censorship). Just consider how algorithmic moderation can shape language (=> people using weird constructs like "to unalive", or weird metaphors in chinese), even in contexts where it would technically be unnecessary. A close US equivalent is the "cant google that, I'll end up on a list" notion. This is all quite undesirable from my point of view.
s1artibartfast 5mo ago
Seems like a fundamental problem if we dont want the laws we passed to be enforced.
- mackeye 5mo ago
  "we" didn't pass them --- i don't think changing the severity of law enforcement alone can achieve what i wish for in society, but the existence of many laws (and severity of their punishment) i disagree with and thus do not want enforced
hammock 5mo ago
> tolerating vicious verbal attacks disguised by somewhat subdued body language (missing data/difficult to detect). Almost all of these cameras have microphones as well. Not as difficult to detect as you may believe
- lostlogin 5mo ago
  Once you have road noise and a distance of 10+ metres, that audio is unlikely to be useful.
  - hammock 5mo ago
    The thousands of viral ring videos, and flock itself, would beg to differ. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flocks-gunshot-detection-microphones-will-start-listening-human-voices https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flocks-gunshot-detecti...

ctoth 5mo ago

> tolerating vicious verbal attacks disguised by somewhat subdued body language Two people arguing in public, words only, is close to a legal non-event in the US. So I would hope so?

seethishat 5mo ago
Until one of them communicates a threat, then it is a criminal matter.
- stickfigure 5mo ago
  I don't think you're advocating to have our personal conversations continuously monitored whenever outside, but in the context of this thread, that's what it sounds like.
  - nightpool 5mo ago
    No, in the context of the thread it sounds like they're illustrating myrmidon's point about how the selective enforcement of crimes that are easy to catch on camera means that the police have less time (and less inclination, training, norms) for addressing more serious crimes, like interpersonal violence. More broadly, they're not saying that we should make the cameras better to catch more crime, they're saying that when you make cameras the main way you catch crime, you shift the social definition of what crime is to "what cameras can catch".
- emptybits 5mo ago
  Perhaps, depending on specific intent, credibility, and the nature of harm threatened. But since this is about surveillance, I hope that detection of verbal threats is not a goal of government surveillance because it's difficult to imagine how that could be accomplished without significant loss of privacy or other liberties.
  - saltyoldman 5mo ago
    I can see it in court now. Our AI monitoring system did indeed know about the threat to the building where 800 people died on Sunday. It says: " Agent: Voice to text detected: I have everything ready - all the XXX chemicals are ready in the van and I'm going to park in the 900 S Crap St now" Agent: Thread Level HIGH. Agent: Looking up local codes. Agent: Mayor signed SB-1238 in 2026 - no surveillance devices may be used for audio threat determination. Agent: Threat silenced, but logged. Judge: Oh, that makes sense. Make sure to bag and tag and bill the families for the bags. City Employee: We also know who parked the van, should we arrest them. Judge: No it looks like SB-1238 would forbid us from using this data for the purposes of arrest. I guess send them a thank you letter for testing our laws.
    - ryeats 5mo ago
      This is essentially the Trolley Problem.
    - anigbrowl 5mo ago
      Oh, only 800? Maybe you can pick a larger imaginary number to make me feel really guilty about not wanting to give up my rights to live free of surveillance.
      - saltyoldman 5mo ago
        I mean yeah, but I don't need to. These cameras ARE already the result of 9/11.
        foota 5mo ago
- cucumber3732842 5mo ago
  Pretty much everything is a crime if you do it while blacker or trashier than the local baseline.
- dmitrygr 5mo ago
  > then it is a criminal matter. In very limited and clearly defined ways only: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2024/08/True-Threats-Guidance-3.pdf https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites...
myrmidon 5mo ago
The threshold for a surveillance system to affect societal norms is not necessarily "legal event", and potentially even lower than any observable reaction (from self-censorship). Just consider how algorithmic moderation can shape language (=> people using weird constructs like "to unalive", or weird metaphors in chinese), even in contexts where it would technically be unnecessary. A close US equivalent is the "cant google that, I'll end up on a list" notion. This is all quite undesirable from my point of view.

s1artibartfast 5mo ago

Seems like a fundamental problem if we dont want the laws we passed to be enforced.

mackeye 5mo ago
"we" didn't pass them --- i don't think changing the severity of law enforcement alone can achieve what i wish for in society, but the existence of many laws (and severity of their punishment) i disagree with and thus do not want enforced

hammock 5mo ago

> tolerating vicious verbal attacks disguised by somewhat subdued body language (missing data/difficult to detect). Almost all of these cameras have microphones as well. Not as difficult to detect as you may believe

lostlogin 5mo ago
Once you have road noise and a distance of 10+ metres, that audio is unlikely to be useful.
- hammock 5mo ago
  The thousands of viral ring videos, and flock itself, would beg to differ. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flocks-gunshot-detection-microphones-will-start-listening-human-voices https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flocks-gunshot-detecti...