Creepy stuff. Maybe we ought not to constantly record everything happening around us all the time.
It's a bit like climate change. Slow, invisible poison.
Public cameras should only be decrypted for evidence to support litigation of crimes, not for police to search for violay, because the current gigantic book of laws has an implicit assumption of a difficulty to enforce.
If suddenly police could use AI to fully prosecute all violations of law then we have all the laws necessary for worse than totalitarian existence.
Every mile you drove in a car will be 10 violations of law. Laugh loud? Violation disturbance of peace. Stand looking at your email too long? Loitering. Cross a park? Dozens of environmental violations.
> Unfortunately the current SCOTUS doesn’t see it that way, they think webcams and electronic surveillance should be in the constitution or authorities can do anything.
Citation needed.
Are you sure those are organic?
‘The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.’
Is that what's referred to as a "wen"?
(Onomatopoetic term, that. Think of how you'd talk with a golfball in your mouth)
Now, our extended family is prosperous in the US, Australia and Ireland. We’re taller, healthier and mostly in professional or skilled trade jobs.
The past is often seen through a sepia tinted idealized slant. The past was full of suffering and brutality. Even warfare was just as brutal - in ancient times, Caesar slaughtered 1-2% of the global population in Gaul. In the 17th century, marauding armies picked regions cleaned and left thousands to starve.
As much of a proponent of technology as I am, I often reflect on whether we are truly bending the arc of suffering in a positive direction, or if it has remained far more constant than we’d like to believe.
If they were lucky, they starved in the woods, hiding like animals.
Small plots are _still_ a problem for most people . 'We' sort off worked around the small plots problem by having the industrial revolution come along and then made jobs available for those who had only small plots.
Hypothetically, if every human had an equal part of earth, relatively fewer would have been in the pathetic state that you mentioned in the per-industrial era, and even less so in the post-industrialization era.
Yes, there are negatives to the Industrial Revolution we have to overcome. But it’s a net positive for everyone.
You’re welcome to fantasize being someone’s slave. I’m not.
I do not want to stop tech progress, but I do want to stop social regress. Give it another 20-30 years and we will have same shit problems with freedoms as China, Russia, insert your fav scapegoat here.
The idea that the west are the “good guys” hasn’t been true for a long time, if ever. China is just better at technology and large scale coordination than the US, so they are way better at building and deploying and operating large scale surveillance systems. The US will catch up in a few decades.
I believe this is inevitable. There is no meaningful opposition to pervasive surveillance in US government and there is no useful political action that can be undertaken by the public to turn this tide.
I think also it is worth distinguishing between corporate surveillance, where there are very few limits on what they can do with the data, vs government surveillance where we can exert some power over the government by electing people to pass laws that reflect our desire for privacy.
As well, I am surprised HN has not internalized Brin's essay "The Transparent Society." Privacy is going to be deeply reduced by the ability of all curious 13 year olds to launch insect sized drones. The question is how to handle - let only the overseers have the data or insist on public right to access data. Or something else; like laws forcing personal ownership of your data (although how things like being in the background of your neighbors cameras as you walk down the street should be handled there I am not sure.).
I would also point out that freedom and privacy aren't identical - one may have freedom via privacy or via less intrusive laws. (Ed: deleted incomplete thought).
There was tech to watch for what things you pick up and put back or dwell on in stores with cameras and heat maps and loyalty card tracking before 2005. it's not far off to get a person some computer thinks should be investigated based on patterns and data out there publicly.
No plans to upgrade or get new vehicles unless a dire need. For instance if Sprinter or Tacoma die, drive the not-dead one. (Sprinter is technially an RV, but used for business).
Because, if not, this is about as "creepy" as those nerdy guys sitting in their bedrooms and basements, tinkering with their silly computers all day, meaning: Non-conformist and something you might just not be ready to think about straight.
I would be mich more concerned with regulatory capture by the spying corporations or laws passed by a minority seeking to impose a religious based set of laws than car cameras.
As you point out, you can be arrested for being gay without all those cameras, but the possibility of making laws to protect the right to be gay is also doable.
And if you don't think any sort of consumer right to own your data law will be lobbied against by Google and Meta lobbiests, well I think you are wrong.
Whenever I see people seriously argue against statistics by leaning on stories, it tends to be complicated and sinister. If you are that afraid of your government, if you deem your government to be that irresponsible and also out of your control, that on average you would rather not default support it when fighting crime, then I think you are you confused about what battle you should actually be fighting.
I Should be able to FOIA-LiveStream #OfficerBadge_Num
For #1  Rights? Maybe #2
#If Warrant granted, then enable FOIA-Cam_Footage = 1