Hacker News Reader

Comment by medion | Hacker News Reader

This aerial stuff now enhanced by AI is a privacy rights nightmare - in Australia, local councils are utilizing high res images shot by plane, which are AI analysed for infractions - ie. Illegal outbuildings, cut trees, earth works greater than a metre in depth, solar panels placed without auth etc. This kind of tech is going to be abused by both the private and public sector to no end. The images have a resolution to the point where veins on a tree leaf are perceptible.

We are literally going to be monitored from the sky by AI for a lot of things, and from a legal standpoint at this stage there is nothing to stop anyone from doing it.

View on HN

(Am Australian lawyer) there's no privacy recognised in any of those things you're talking about. Simple solution is don't lie to insurers or the government.

Of course we can elect politicians that change the law. Might be a hard sell if the motivation is to stop detection of illegal things.

Sources: (no general right to privacy) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Park_Racing_%26_Rec...

The Privacy Act (https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-legislation/the-priv...)

Haha, by your reckoning why not monitor all comms for any lies? This is why we can’t have nice things. We are walking into a new Robodebt scenario run by AI - it’s all too much living in a constant state of surveillance and it’s not a world I want to live in.

I don't represent any view point on the law just telling you how it is. There's always multiple competing priorities. Ultimately not a politician so it doesn't really matter what I think.

If we're talking morality I don't see how it's moral to ask the law to protect you from being found out doing the wrong thing. If these people don't pay their fair share the rest of us have to pay more.

What if a law change prevents the government from enforcing environmental legislation from illegal land clearing or dumping? What if a farmer illegally diverts more water than they are allowed to from a river or with a well? It's not just about you and me but the whole country.

On robodebt: that has nothing to do with privacy, tax records aren't private from the government? That's just bad tax enforcement.

We have communities which can manage their own local issues internally - rather than aerial surveillance tech and AI keeping watch of our every move. We all know this will be used for minor infringements and revenue raising, more paperwork and more red tape. Like I said, by your token, monitor all comms and detect lies and infringements. Ban blinds and curtains too so we can get changed in public view.

Don't give aussies any ideas, they tried to make mathematics illegal. Sometimes they take the worst aspects of the british and americans and make it their own

By far the worst thing we have is lack of protection on whistleblowers. There's multiple facing decades in jail right now. Even a change in governments didn't stop the prosecutions

By far the worst thing is what we don’t have: a bill of rights.

This is not a technology or privacy problem - it's a legislative one. If it's illegal to do X, then it seems reasonable for the gov't to enforce that - the more efficiently the better. And if enforcing it seems wrong, then maybe it shouldn't be a law.

For another toy example, what if speed laws in the US were fully enforced 100% of the time - they would be yanked immediately, because they are dumb and mostly just used to fund the police. We only tolerate them because they aren't enforced on us very often as individuals. It's like a medium-skill lottery to see who pays for the police.

The technology is an enabler and it creeps into everything and before you know it we are where we are today.

> what if speed laws in the US were fully enforced 100% of the time - they would be yanked immediately, because they are dumb and mostly just used to fund the police

Or maybe people would adjust their behavior and respect speed limits? Laws that are sporadically enforced at the discretion of police officers are awful. It just enables discrimination.

Totally agree! People might adjust their speeds. Or continue speeding and accept the fines. But getting mad and forcing the law to change seems more likely to me.

But partially enforced laws are the worst.

The US is very lax about enforcing speed laws compared to other countries.

Compare to somewhere like Australia where you get fined for just going a few km/h over the limit and the use speed cameras extensively.

https://www.qld.gov.au/about/newsroom/increased-penalties-fo...

Whereas it seems to be common in parts of the US for everyone on a freeway to be 10 miles/hour over the limit and nobody cares

What is the Australian citizen’s sentiment toward these speed laws?

And what are the limits on a typical freeway?

I'm not from Australia (in NZ) but I'd expect the usual range of views. However fines are a voluntary payment to usually attract less opposition

Typical limits are here. 100 km/h on most freeways, 100km/h on ones built to higher standards.

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/speed-limits

Reply on news.ycombinator.com