4 ms·

I really don’t agree. Especially in this day where anyone, or any business could run it all through AI and profile everyone to work out the exact best moment to

I really don’t agree. Especially in this day where anyone, or any business could run it all through AI and profile everyone to work out the exact best moment to send you a push notification for a Big Mac or whatever.

infecto 4mo ago
I think I agree. I think this is the type of data that should be able to be requested (and given if the context is correct) but not simply freely out there. Some third party commercial party will just use and abuse it.
- buellerbueller 4mo ago
  Ok, thats simple: no commercial use licensing. This already exists, via various copyleft mechanisms.
  - infecto 4mo ago
    And very easy to ignore. Not an easy solve. Once the cat is out of the bag you cannot put it back. Similar to how LLMs have massive training sets on copyright material.
buellerbueller 4mo ago
I think the value of having the data on public spaces publicly available far outweighs the risk of privately held data, or editorializaed data from public spaces. Also: You're welcome to disable push notifications if you don't want a big mac ad. (I agree that advertising is a cancer.) Also, 2: What right should the government have to capture public data and then keep it from the public?
- vrganj 4mo ago
  The idea of Meta being able to track my every move creeps me the fuck out, sorry. What right does the government have to give my data to randos? The public that's captured is not the same as the public that accesses the data. Just imagine the creepy implications. Imagine what stalkers could do if they could follow a woman's every movement. Imagine robbers staking out houses from the comfort of their couch. The government has an obligation to protect the data it has on its citizens, not to just give out willy-nilly. By your logic, public hospitals should share your medical files publicly. The solution would be for less data to be collected in the first place, not to make the data leak as dystopian as possible.
  - buellerbueller 4mo ago
    -Meta can already track your every move; that ship has sailed. Not sure why it is relevant to this discussion. -Randos can already observe your every movement, They just have to do it physically. A stalker can already follow a woman's public movements. A robber can already stake out a house. -Your medical data is private, whereas this is a discussion about data from the public sphere, where there is no legal expectation of privacy. -I agree that it would be a better world if there were no drone surveillance, however, in a world where there is drone surveillance--i.e., the world in which we exist--I would prefer public data available to all, rather than a one-sided panopticon. With the former, at least we can watch the watchmen.
    - vrganj 4mo ago
      > -Meta can already track your every move; that ship has sailed. Not sure why it is relevant to this discussion. I've gone through great lengths to ensure it can't, I'd rather not have the government undo all that effort. > -Your medical data is private, whereas this is a discussion about data from the public sphere, where there is no legal expectation of privacy. Maybe there should be? There is in other parts of the world. > -Randos can already observe your every movement, They just have to do it physically. A stalker can already follow a woman's public movements. A robber can already stake out a house. Doing that in person is a much different thing in terms of commitment compared to doing it from the comfort of your couch, or hell, having an AI model do it for you and send you a nice notification. > I would prefer public data available to all, rather than a one-sided panopticon. With the former, at least we can watch the watchmen. I would rather limit access to a power that can - at least theoretically - be changed democratically, instead of having an infinite-sided panopticon.
      - buellerbueller 4mo ago
        >> -Your medical data is private, whereas this is a discussion about data from >the public sphere, where there is no legal expectation of privacy. > >Maybe there should be? There is in other parts of the world. I strenuously object. But that's not this conversation. It's way upstream, as the SCOTUS has already decided that there is no public expectation of privacy. >> -Randos can already observe your every movement, They just have to do it >physically. A stalker can already follow a woman's public movements. A robber >can already stake out a house. > >Doing that in person is a much different thing in terms of commitment compared >to doing it from the comfort of your couch, or hell, having an AI model do it >for you and send you a nice notification. A rando can send a drone or a fleet of drones to do the same surveillance that you are worried about here. Perhaps you are just really anti-drone? >> I would prefer public data available to all, rather than a one-sided >panopticon. With the former, at least we can watch the watchmen. > >I would rather limit access to a power that can - at least theoretically - be >changed democratically, instead of having an infinite-sided panopticon. There is no such thing as an infinite-sided panopticon. Definitionally, a panopticon is one-sided.
- Gigachad 4mo ago
  The government is different from a person. I’m ok with cctv being recorded and stored for x days with protocols and laws that restrict who can access it and for what purposes. With audit logs and penalties for misuse.
  - nozzlegear 4mo ago
    On the other hand, I'm not okay with this precisely because it's the government.
Grombobulous 4mo ago
And this is the perfect demonstration of what why police shouldn’t have access to this technology. Police should be made to get out of their cars and make some relationships with the community to get information. They should be so trusted by the community that private citizens willingly give them tips and security footage to aid investigations. This surveillance tech is a band-aid on the effects of crime rather than a solution to the root cause. So you catch the criminals and put them in jail. Then what? What prevents more people from resorting to crime? What prevents recidivism? Our government as a whole should reduce crime by performing the most effective crime reduction strategies: eliminating the tuition cost of education, ending poverty [1] and disastrously high income inequality, implementing strong universal healthcare [2], reforming the prison system so that it provides opportunities to rehabilitate rather than raw punishment, enshrining employee protections like paid family leave into law so that kids can be raised by their family rather than being under-supervised while their parents work two shifts a day. [1] With the excess wealth the US generates, ending poverty is trivial. Suggested Google search: “daily cost of Iran war.” [2] Doesn’t even cost money, it saves money.
- rayiner 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Grombobulous 4mo ago
    I think this is basically a cherry-picking and oversimplification of the situation. For one thing, income inequality in Brazil is significantly higher than in Bangladesh. Also remember that I was speaking in the context of the wealthiest country on earth. We could perhaps assume that Brazil may not have the resources to end poverty and crime, but the USA definitely does.
    - rayiner 4mo ago
      > Also remember that I was speaking in the context of the wealthiest country on earth. We could perhaps assume that Brazil may not have the resources to end poverty and crime, but the USA definitely does. That doesn't matter. If crime is caused by poverty, like you hypothesize, then poor countries like Bangladesh should have astronomical crime rates. But they don't.

infecto 4mo ago

I think I agree. I think this is the type of data that should be able to be requested (and given if the context is correct) but not simply freely out there. Some third party commercial party will just use and abuse it.

buellerbueller 4mo ago
Ok, thats simple: no commercial use licensing. This already exists, via various copyleft mechanisms.
- infecto 4mo ago
  And very easy to ignore. Not an easy solve. Once the cat is out of the bag you cannot put it back. Similar to how LLMs have massive training sets on copyright material.

buellerbueller 4mo ago

I think the value of having the data on public spaces publicly available far outweighs the risk of privately held data, or editorializaed data from public spaces. Also: You're welcome to disable push notifications if you don't want a big mac ad. (I agree that advertising is a cancer.) Also, 2: What right should the government have to capture public data and then keep it from the public?

vrganj 4mo ago
The idea of Meta being able to track my every move creeps me the fuck out, sorry. What right does the government have to give my data to randos? The public that's captured is not the same as the public that accesses the data. Just imagine the creepy implications. Imagine what stalkers could do if they could follow a woman's every movement. Imagine robbers staking out houses from the comfort of their couch. The government has an obligation to protect the data it has on its citizens, not to just give out willy-nilly. By your logic, public hospitals should share your medical files publicly. The solution would be for less data to be collected in the first place, not to make the data leak as dystopian as possible.
- buellerbueller 4mo ago
  -Meta can already track your every move; that ship has sailed. Not sure why it is relevant to this discussion. -Randos can already observe your every movement, They just have to do it physically. A stalker can already follow a woman's public movements. A robber can already stake out a house. -Your medical data is private, whereas this is a discussion about data from the public sphere, where there is no legal expectation of privacy. -I agree that it would be a better world if there were no drone surveillance, however, in a world where there is drone surveillance--i.e., the world in which we exist--I would prefer public data available to all, rather than a one-sided panopticon. With the former, at least we can watch the watchmen.
  - vrganj 4mo ago
    > -Meta can already track your every move; that ship has sailed. Not sure why it is relevant to this discussion. I've gone through great lengths to ensure it can't, I'd rather not have the government undo all that effort. > -Your medical data is private, whereas this is a discussion about data from the public sphere, where there is no legal expectation of privacy. Maybe there should be? There is in other parts of the world. > -Randos can already observe your every movement, They just have to do it physically. A stalker can already follow a woman's public movements. A robber can already stake out a house. Doing that in person is a much different thing in terms of commitment compared to doing it from the comfort of your couch, or hell, having an AI model do it for you and send you a nice notification. > I would prefer public data available to all, rather than a one-sided panopticon. With the former, at least we can watch the watchmen. I would rather limit access to a power that can - at least theoretically - be changed democratically, instead of having an infinite-sided panopticon.
    - buellerbueller 4mo ago
      >> -Your medical data is private, whereas this is a discussion about data from >the public sphere, where there is no legal expectation of privacy. > >Maybe there should be? There is in other parts of the world. I strenuously object. But that's not this conversation. It's way upstream, as the SCOTUS has already decided that there is no public expectation of privacy. >> -Randos can already observe your every movement, They just have to do it >physically. A stalker can already follow a woman's public movements. A robber >can already stake out a house. > >Doing that in person is a much different thing in terms of commitment compared >to doing it from the comfort of your couch, or hell, having an AI model do it >for you and send you a nice notification. A rando can send a drone or a fleet of drones to do the same surveillance that you are worried about here. Perhaps you are just really anti-drone? >> I would prefer public data available to all, rather than a one-sided >panopticon. With the former, at least we can watch the watchmen. > >I would rather limit access to a power that can - at least theoretically - be >changed democratically, instead of having an infinite-sided panopticon. There is no such thing as an infinite-sided panopticon. Definitionally, a panopticon is one-sided.
Gigachad 4mo ago
The government is different from a person. I’m ok with cctv being recorded and stored for x days with protocols and laws that restrict who can access it and for what purposes. With audit logs and penalties for misuse.
- nozzlegear 4mo ago
  On the other hand, I'm not okay with this precisely because it's the government.

Grombobulous 4mo ago

And this is the perfect demonstration of what why police shouldn’t have access to this technology. Police should be made to get out of their cars and make some relationships with the community to get information. They should be so trusted by the community that private citizens willingly give them tips and security footage to aid investigations. This surveillance tech is a band-aid on the effects of crime rather than a solution to the root cause. So you catch the criminals and put them in jail. Then what? What prevents more people from resorting to crime? What prevents recidivism? Our government as a whole should reduce crime by performing the most effective crime reduction strategies: eliminating the tuition cost of education, ending poverty [1] and disastrously high income inequality, implementing strong universal healthcare [2], reforming the prison system so that it provides opportunities to rehabilitate rather than raw punishment, enshrining employee protections like paid family leave into law so that kids can be raised by their family rather than being under-supervised while their parents work two shifts a day. [1] With the excess wealth the US generates, ending poverty is trivial. Suggested Google search: “daily cost of Iran war.” [2] Doesn’t even cost money, it saves money.

rayiner 4mo ago
[flagged]
- Grombobulous 4mo ago
  I think this is basically a cherry-picking and oversimplification of the situation. For one thing, income inequality in Brazil is significantly higher than in Bangladesh. Also remember that I was speaking in the context of the wealthiest country on earth. We could perhaps assume that Brazil may not have the resources to end poverty and crime, but the USA definitely does.
  - rayiner 4mo ago
    > Also remember that I was speaking in the context of the wealthiest country on earth. We could perhaps assume that Brazil may not have the resources to end poverty and crime, but the USA definitely does. That doesn't matter. If crime is caused by poverty, like you hypothesize, then poor countries like Bangladesh should have astronomical crime rates. But they don't.