Hacker News Reader

Comment by giraffe_lady | Hacker News Reader

None of these seem actionable to me. What are you trying to prevent that a camera would stop? If the basement is visibly flooding then it is flooded. If someone is on camera entering your home then they are in it.

What are you going to do about it at that point that you wouldn't be able to do about it the next morning or whatever? Insurance doesn't require camera footage and realistically the most likely outcome of any of this stuff is an insurance claim.

The kids thing I don't know, it certainly depends on your family's circumstances and your personal concerns with your children, who you know and I don't. There are definitely situations where a camera can be worth it there, but not as many as most contemporary wealthy parents seem to think.

View on HN

Yes, some may be un-actionable, but there are actions I could take on others (e.g. flooding is not equal to flooded in my situation). Whether they are worth it is still not clear to me. As my kids a getting older it is not so important to monitor them without special circumstances. I do fail to see where wealth has anything to do with this though.

Edit: Moved edit to reply that was not an option before.

ok. I'm not trying to be hostile I only brought this up because you mentioned concerns with privacy and what your children are learning to tolerate and accept re: surveillance.

We feel safer with cameras but in practice there are few cases where we truly are. I think what the kids are likely to learn from this is that an authority's sense of security is a more powerful demand than their own need for privacy, something with, to me, pretty direct connections to the overall worker-surveillance conversation. I'm not judging you for having cameras or even specifically recommending you don't, just agreeing that your fears are justified and they may not be, probably aren't, worth it.

TBH I'm not sure what the wealth link is either! But I was poor/working class most of my life, and am high income now, and have friends in both groups. I just do not see cameras in the homes of people who are not affluent, except sometimes camera-enabled baby monitors. It may just be a matter of access but they aren't all that expensive so I'm not satisfied by that explanation.

While I would not put cameras in my home, I do want a copy of the record for myself in the event something happens on my property that I could be liable for, such as a trip and fall on the sidewalk in front of my house. Or if I have to use self defense, or if cops do something unsavory, or if someone breaks in or damages car, I have evidence. It is a type of insurance that costs basically nothing.

I was already able to provide a good look at a thief’s car who stole a package from my neighbor’s doorstep to distribute around the community. And the neighbor’s camera got the theif’s face.

I also have a dash cam for the same reasons. I want to have my evidence because others will probably have theirs and my evidence can be a tool to protect me.

Yeah my point is that you don't get those things from the cameras, or don't need them. Look:

  > something happens on my property that I could be liable for, such as a trip and fall on the sidewalk in front of my house
  - that's a homeowner's insurance claim, and their problem now.

  > Or if I have to use self defense
  - in your own home? very few prosecutors would pursue this and fewer juries convict it. I have incredibly little trust in the carceral justice system but even I can believe this will end in your favor

  > if cops do something unsavory
  - camera won't stop them and it won't get them punished either. it *might* help turn it into a big media event which long-term may help erode these powers. but it won't help you.

  > someone breaks in or damages car
  - evidence for what? again this is an insurance claim, and the damage itself is sufficient evidence for this. the police may or may not pursue the damager but either way you still have a broken car, and still get your insurance payout. why care?

It may cheap in terms of money but it does not cost nothing. It normalizes surveillance and fear, and reinforces our natural inclinations towards distrust and retribution. These things are understandably tempting but we are all better to the extent that we individually fight them in ourselves.

> - that's a homeowner's insurance claim, and their problem now.

The increase in your insurance premiums due to an unfavorable judgment is my problem. I know from experience at my businesses.

>in your own home? very few prosecutors would pursue this and fewer juries convict it. I have incredibly little trust in the carceral justice system but even I can believe this will end in your favor

The cameras would not be in my home, but for example, if the victim claims I let them in, and I can easily prove that they broke in.

>camera won't stop them and it won't get them punished either. it might help turn it into a big media event which long-term may help erode these powers. but it won't help you.

It is not about punishing the cops. It is about protecting me from he said she said legal costs. And especially when it comes to cops since their word has a higher value than my word.

>It may cheap in terms of money but it does not cost nothing. It normalizes surveillance and fear, and reinforces our natural inclinations towards distrust and retribution. These things are understandably tempting but we are all better to the extent that we individually fight them in ourselves.

Sure, but everyone else is arming themselves, so it does not make sense for me to sacrifice myself and not have evidence in my corner if I want to use it, while letting others have theirs. It is not like I have easy access to a cops’ body cams.

Thinking about this more I agree with you and think the answer for me is to simply have the cameras off by default and only use implicitly when away and monitoring makes me feel better. They provide little, possibly negative, service during the time a household member is home. Being from a similar background as you I have a hard time with the labels rich/wealthy, so my apologies for being defensive. The wealth aspect is interesting as you pointed out because that is what I think of in the past, however now I think it is accessible for many as costs of cameras and online video storage come down. The usefulness of camera surveillance seems to diminish though when you are not trying to spy on people who have privelaged access to your home that are not household members and may or may not deserve the same level of privacy (to bring this full circle back to work surveillance).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com