6 ms·

Automation is the game changer. Long term data storage, new algorithms, combining databases, new algorithms that find out stuff etc. lead to huge changes that m

Automation is the game changer. Long term data storage, new algorithms, combining databases, new algorithms that find out stuff etc. lead to huge changes that must be taken into account when designing systems. Leave the house with the zipper down on Monday. Have a silly argument with a neighbor on Friday. Isolated incidents that will end up in the "Worst of Houshalter" - file, either available for everyone, or just a group of decisionmakers. Am I seeing this right, or am I exaggerating?

Houshalter 13y ago
My point is it's the same thing, just faster/cheaper. Perhaps it should be banned or controlled. But calling it unconstitutional is a stretch I think. If that's the case, regular "dumb" surveillance cameras should be too.
- UweSchmidt 13y ago
  Good point, but what's a regular, "dumb" surveillance camera? Does such a thing even exist any more? I imagine that as old systems are replaced by newer ones, they automatically get more digital, intelligent, connected and store data in a more compatible and accessible format. I see warning signs all over the place, that this train/building/place etc. is under video surveillance. Cool story bro. Details? Who's looking at the data? How long will it be stored? How is that data protected? I tried out SimpleCV recently, and was fascinated how much already works out of the box. Face recognition from a video is basically the "Hello World" program. The phrase "Wake up sheeple" has been discredited as wannabe-enlightened, but in this case I feel like opening my window and shouting it out loud. Sigh.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    On the other hand there is tremendous potential for such technology. Stores will be able to significantly reduce their losses to shoplifting. A ton of jobs will be open to automation - including things that were previously too expensive to do with humans. Robotics will significantly advance. And we can virtually eliminate crime. These privacy laws could be really damaging to progress. In some cases it basically makes it illegal to make a machine do the same thing as a human.
    - aidenn0 13y ago
      > we can virtually eliminate crime No, we virtually eliminate crime of anyone that isn't friends with the bureau that manages the cameras
      - Houshalter 13y ago
        We already have surveillance cameras everywhere and this doesn't seem to be happening.
        waterlesscloud 13y ago
        Crime doesn't seem to be eliminated either.
        jessaustin 13y ago
        How would you know if it were happening? Quis custodiet...
    - jodrellblank 13y ago
      These privacy laws could be really damaging to progress. In some cases it basically makes it illegal to make a machine do the same thing as a human. I don't automatically have a problem with that. Progress at any cost isn't something I take as "obviously good" and machines don't have rights to employment. That's ignoring the fact that you want the machine to do it because it's not doing "the same thing", it's doing something slightly different.
      - Houshalter 13y ago
        I take objection to that. Far more harm is done by being conservative and resisting new technologies, than is caused by just embracing them. Every generation thinks the present is just fine and that the future is scary.
    - Crito 13y ago
      > And we can virtually eliminate crime. If you make a comb with teeth too fine, it will rip out your hair.
- termain 13y ago
  That's a reasonable line. There's another that's gaining traction, put forth by Justice Sotomayor in US v. Jones: '“It may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties,” Sotomayor wrote in 2012. “This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks.”' http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-sotomayor-undermined-obamas-nsa http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-sotomayor-undermined-obamas-n...

Houshalter 13y ago

My point is it's the same thing, just faster/cheaper. Perhaps it should be banned or controlled. But calling it unconstitutional is a stretch I think. If that's the case, regular "dumb" surveillance cameras should be too.

UweSchmidt 13y ago
Good point, but what's a regular, "dumb" surveillance camera? Does such a thing even exist any more? I imagine that as old systems are replaced by newer ones, they automatically get more digital, intelligent, connected and store data in a more compatible and accessible format. I see warning signs all over the place, that this train/building/place etc. is under video surveillance. Cool story bro. Details? Who's looking at the data? How long will it be stored? How is that data protected? I tried out SimpleCV recently, and was fascinated how much already works out of the box. Face recognition from a video is basically the "Hello World" program. The phrase "Wake up sheeple" has been discredited as wannabe-enlightened, but in this case I feel like opening my window and shouting it out loud. Sigh.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  On the other hand there is tremendous potential for such technology. Stores will be able to significantly reduce their losses to shoplifting. A ton of jobs will be open to automation - including things that were previously too expensive to do with humans. Robotics will significantly advance. And we can virtually eliminate crime. These privacy laws could be really damaging to progress. In some cases it basically makes it illegal to make a machine do the same thing as a human.
  - aidenn0 13y ago
    > we can virtually eliminate crime No, we virtually eliminate crime of anyone that isn't friends with the bureau that manages the cameras
    - Houshalter 13y ago
      We already have surveillance cameras everywhere and this doesn't seem to be happening.
      - waterlesscloud 13y ago
        Crime doesn't seem to be eliminated either.
      - jessaustin 13y ago
        How would you know if it were happening? Quis custodiet...
  - jodrellblank 13y ago
    These privacy laws could be really damaging to progress. In some cases it basically makes it illegal to make a machine do the same thing as a human. I don't automatically have a problem with that. Progress at any cost isn't something I take as "obviously good" and machines don't have rights to employment. That's ignoring the fact that you want the machine to do it because it's not doing "the same thing", it's doing something slightly different.
    - Houshalter 13y ago
      I take objection to that. Far more harm is done by being conservative and resisting new technologies, than is caused by just embracing them. Every generation thinks the present is just fine and that the future is scary.
  - Crito 13y ago
    > And we can virtually eliminate crime. If you make a comb with teeth too fine, it will rip out your hair.
termain 13y ago
That's a reasonable line. There's another that's gaining traction, put forth by Justice Sotomayor in US v. Jones: '“It may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties,” Sotomayor wrote in 2012. “This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks.”' http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-sotomayor-undermined-obamas-nsa http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-sotomayor-undermined-obamas-n...