4 ms·
The tech's there. The genie can't be put back in the bottle, and it will only get cheaper and more invasive. Only question we have any control over is... do we
by flir 4mo ago
The tech's there. The genie can't be put back in the bottle, and it will only get cheaper and more invasive. Only question we have any control over is... do we want everyone to have it, or only govs and corps?
There's a second-amendment-like argument here, imo, that is very hard to push back on - because at least this stuff doesn't kill people. I want every cop to be surrounded by five or six recording devices that they don't control at all times - it's the least worst option.
(Obviously I'm not a fan of the "everying goes to facebook" architecture. I'm hoping we get past that).
- Forgeties79 4mo agoThey haven’t even sold 10mill units. We can still say no.
- yuliyp 4mo agoThe tech's also been there to put cameras everywhere, and to wiretap every phone, etc. We put guardrails in place to control how that tech is deployed.
- awesome_dude 4mo agoVery limited guard rails (WRT cameras) - they can't be in bathrooms is about all I am aware of as a universal restriction
- senordevnyc 4mo agoMan, I can’t tell if this is sarcastic or not…
- yuliyp 4mo agoNot sarcastic, but I probably didn't convey the subtlety of what I was trying to say in a one line comment. I was objecting to the defeatist "oh the tech is there, so we can't do anything about it" attitude. I tried to choose the examples I chose that the tech being there definitely has some consequences and significant privacy implications, but some controls exist too (like, wiretaps are still applied very selectively, there's been a growing movement against Flock cameras and scaling back of their deployments in some places recently).
- convolvatron 4mo agoyou're implying there is some kind of symmetry here, that facial recognition will empower individuals in a way to counteract the power given to governments and corporations. I should try to compile my own database of everyone's location? I fail to see how it helps me in any way
- thereisnospork 4mo agoYou as an individual? Probably not, but you could lobby your local government to, for instance, require any such dataset taken from information in the public be subject to the freedom of information act.
- fwip 4mo agoVictims of stalking would likely be greatly harmed by such a rule.
- Forgeties79 4mo agoThis is all theoretical and pie in the sky stuff, just to be blunt. People are not going to organize like this in any meaningful way. It is going to be generally just bad for society. We have traffic/crime cams all over the place. We’ve done nothing to flip that on its head. A little minor vandalism here and there and some bad press. Why would this be any different?
- jimbokun 4mo agoIf only people already had recording device in their pocket they take with them everywhere…
- kstrauser 4mo agoHow often you see someone taping a phone to their head and wearing it into a bathroom? It's sociopathic to wear spywear in a public setting.
- flir 4mo agoWhat about bodycams on public servants? (I think the precise form factor is something of a distraction. I'm talking about cheap, tiny, always-on cameras hooked up to giant hard discs in the sky, however they're packaged).
- kstrauser 4mo agoBodycams that just record video: I'm fine with that. There's a clear societal benefit to it, and if you see a uniformed police officer, you presume your actions are being witnessed (if only by the human police officer). I'm way less skeeved out by a policeman carrying a gun than some drunk rando in a bar. Bodycams that feature face recognition: Not OK, whether it's law enforcement or some weirdo at a night club. The former, because I don't want to live in a society where police log civilians' movements. The latter, because it's creepy with civilians do it, too.
- flir 4mo ago> Bodycams that feature face recognition: Not OK, whether it's law enforcement or some weirdo at a night club. Ok, but... you know it's inevitable, right? Shops are already doing it, the first weirdo doing it at a nightclub is probably going to be the doorman (transferring the old "do not accept checks from this man" mugshots to the digital realm), I don't know about other countries but the UK police are doing it (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-use-of-facial-recognition/police-use-of-facial-recognition-factsheet https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-use-of-fac...). One of the advantages of bodycams for the police is that the people they deal with get a bit better behaved when they know they're on camera. I'm saying we should have that advantage too. (This is "an armed society is a polite society" redux - a surveilled society is a polite society?) Check out David Brin's concept of the Transparent Society. He's been banging on about this for a couple of decades, and he's a deeper thinker and more persuasive than I am. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society I stress I believe transparency is the least-worst option available to us, not the most desirable option.
- NicuCalcea 4mo agoWe can't put the genie back in the bottle, but we can control how we react to it. As far as I'm concerned, I will treat people wearing smart glasses the same way I would treat someone shoving a smartphone camera in my face. I'll just refuse to engage with them.
- wizzwizz4 4mo agoAre you forgetting Google Glass? We put this genie back into the bottle once: we can do it again.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- rightbyte 4mo agoI was going to write something about that. The "techno fatalism" is annoyingly strong nowadays.