Hacker News Reader

Comment by zhoBEENG | Hacker News Reader

Obama was promoting The Age of Surveillance Capitalism over seven years ago now. Industry insiders have known all this since 1999. Yet almost every single person I know carries a cellphone and drives a car with telemetry, things that are entirely optional. Most humans use Meta products regularly; also optional. For all the feigned outrage, people want this, and will work hard every day to pay for the next iteration of the surveillance apparatus.

PS: Something in this vein that many people are unaware of is that the 6G standard for cell towers is planned to include ISAC (Integrated Sensing and Communication). I haven’t heard a single AFK person talk about this.

View on HN

I don't think people want this. I think people want the other benefits that those things bring, and increasingly feel that it's impossible to escape being surveilled anyway so do their best to ignore the whole issue.

Being resigned to something is not the same as wanting that thing.

Agree, you’re either a digital hermit or you’re part of the problem / system

The really obnoxious part is that with the possible exception of maps all of the other "services" touted as vital parts of a digitally connected existence are so enshittified at this point that the original value proposition for all of them is absent. So we're left with this zombie rhetoric around being disconnected while "connecting" means you spend hours every day staring at bot content and ads.

You really spend hours a day staring at bots and ads?

Most do.

Fuck no, I stopped using my phone for anything besides maps and phone stuff before the pandemic. You peddling the idea that that isn't what all of the social platforms are these days?

I'm not sure that's really true. The two that come immediately to mind are Facebook or Discord for organizing with friends and language translation while traveling.

I mean I might give it to you for Discord but Facebook is an easy win here. There's so much bot crap on Facebook Meta keeps getting dragged in front of congress over it.

It’s enticing to believe we coulda gone another way. Such as having a paid versions of these services. But free is just Soooo enticing. It hacks peoples brains.

That cellphone and car and television and most other things that spy on you were most certainly not free.

Alas this is the structure of power. Either you have to do a total rejection of its benefits or you end up being sucked into the system as others practically force people into it for fear of being left behind.

Sometimes it’s also a pain to opt out.

The outrageous prices of used (low telemetry) cars make them a poor value proposition, for example. Depending on the model, a used car can be a decade old with half of its lifetime miles on it already and the seller will still want $14k or something crazy like that. When you factor in the parts of its history that carfax doesn’t cover and the stream of repairs you’re likely to be saddled with, finding a 0%-2% financing deal on something new at ~$20-24k begins to look a lot more attractive.

> I don't think people want this

There was a comment made here a month or two ago, about someone from a SE Asia country (I forget which; maybe Bangladesh?) talking about how their government installed AI traffic enforcement cameras all over, and they went from one of the deadliest, most chaotic road systems in the world to Singapore-level rule-following in the space of just a couple months.

As a result, the cameras have become quite popular because there's less traffic, travelling is easier and more predictable, and road deaths have plummeted.

I imagine there are a number of similar situations in every country, where the deployment of AI surveillance has a sufficiently measurably positive impact that it becomes popular.

> their government installed AI traffic enforcement cameras all over

What does the AI actually do? Identify specific cars and their drivers, or something? What actual enforcement actions were taken as a result, and against how many drivers before it stopped?

One might wonder how much of the effect was placebo (i.e., people conforming simply due to the belief of being surveilled).

> What does the AI actually do? Identify specific cars and their drivers, or something?

Yes, exactly. It identifies cars and drivers who are committing traffic violations, and issues citations.

I don't have the specific numbers you ask for, seeing as I can't even remember the country, but it's not difficult to imagine that if sufficiently many such cameras are installed that most moving violations on major roadways are caught and punished, then yes, people will come to (reasonably) believe that the cost of committing the violation is close to the price of the fine, rather than close to zero.

It's one thing to blow by a pedestrian crossing the street, it's another to do so knowing you'll probably be charged $150 (or whatever) for having done it.

There was an article on the front page today titled something like "incentives are for schmucks", which I didn't like very much.

In this case, incentives are for people who'd like to reduce traffic deaths.

So it's something AI, somewhere, you cant verify it, nevermind us. But you feel comfortable stating it both as a fact and a good thing to have.

If you see someone stating something as being "a good thing to have", you accidentally replied to the wrong comment.

If you read "one can see how someone might not object to this" and understand "this is a good thing to have" then I'm afraid the issue is you contributing the stats that news agencies like to publish about American reading comprehension trends.

Please don't call license plate scanners AI

Why not? If they use a machine learning approach. AI is more than LLMs.

It's a trained model, just like Claude.

Using the broader label to imply good things about the narrow thing sucks. Like being pro "technology" means nothing

The word means what it does. I’m not changing my use of language just because some people misunderstand the dictionary definition.

What narrow thing? "AI" has been used to refer to ML models for longer than LLMs have existed.

Your choice to see "AI" and assume some narrow definition is a personal issue that you could correct on your own if you chose.

Look you can be pedantic about the language all you want. I'm 100% for preferring saying LLM when you mean LLM.

We're in a thread about AI surveillence.

Note the "I imagine there are a number of similar situations in every country, where the deployment of AI surveillance has a sufficiently measurably positive impact that it becomes popular"

Someone said please don't refer to license plate scanners as AI. One can be obtuse and take that at face value, or one could read it as "please don't lump more deterministic ML together haphazardly by calling them all AI. "

This is what I mean by broad and narrow. You could have said technological surveillence and it had the same effect.

> We're in a thread about AI surveillence.

We're only in a thread about AI surveillance because I used the work "AI" when describing the license plate cameras.

Neither the comment I replied to, nor the original article, are particularly about AI in general nor about LLMs specifically. They're about data collection. The "AI" topic is a tangent.

I don't see the difference between "please don't lump more deterministic ML together haphazardly by calling them all AI" and taking what was said at face value. I completely understand the commenter's request that I encode their values into my speech in the way they prefer! I just disagree with them and decline to do so. What you misread as me being obtuse and not "reading" it correctly, is in fact just me saying "no".

My bad did not intend to imply you were obtuse. Tbh I thought you were on the other end of that and thinking they were denying LLMs were AI.

Vietnam?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/28/world/asia/vietnam-traffi...

aaand that's enough internet for today

All successful negative things have a claim to virtue that they hide behind.

By leveraging mobile network infrastructure – towers, spectrum, antennas, and some hardware – ISAC can detect, locate, and track objects (including passive ones with no electronics). This will enable a wide range of use cases such as UAV airspace monitoring, autonomous vehicle safety, industrial automation, and immersive AR experiences. Commercial deployment is expected alongside 6G rollouts in the 2030 timeframe

https://www.ericsson.com/en/6g/isac

Thank you, this deserved a link. I was being lazy.

I wonder how precise this will be? A flying object sounds reasonable but could it actually track say individual people walking on a street further down the line?

I suspect while not individually, it will provide another data point that can be collaborated.

One should never underestimate the power of combining data sets.

Although this is a preprint it shares some discussion and ideas on how to mitigate potential privacy challenges of ISAC.

https://eprint.iacr.org/2026/1069

From the hardware side, extremely precise. Most discussions assume the sweet spot for ISAC is in "Frequency Range 3" (7 - 24 GHz, decent penetration and range, very good resolution), and in that range you can pin down objects with millimeter precision (both position and velocity). So, not only can you detect people walking down the street, you can detect them breathing when they stand perfectly still.

This, of course, requires 6G base stations to be spaced pretty tightly (hundreds of meters apart) and to feature sophisticated phased array antennas. But both can be assumed in cities (they're planning to completely replace WIFI with 6G, so every current WIFI access point will become a 6G micro cell). Walking humans can be detected much easier, but radar SNR is funny, that only gives you 4x-6x the detection range.

Software (signals processing) for all that will be... a lot of difficult work. Object separation/tracking, multipath reflections, clutter suppression, ect.

As someone who regularly attempts to give up a cell phone, it is not optional. A not insignificant number of things require it. It is the expectation society is now built around and therefore it is not an option. A car without telemetry is for the time being still optional. I take very good care of my old vehicles hoping I never need a new one.

I have seen enough instances of government authorities abusing their power (or even civilians using the courts against another civilian) to know that the best defense you have in a situation where you are the victim is to have your own recording.

Easiest example is having your own dash cam (don’t know why all auto manufacturers don’t have Tesla style camera recordings, especially given that all new cars come with cameras anyway).

Of course, now that video editing is cheap and difficult to spot, who knows if your evidence will make much of a difference.

> Of course, now that video editing is cheap and difficult to spot, who knows if your evidence will make much of a difference.

Maybe you could use a trusted timestamping service to stamp keyframes or stills from your video while you're recording? If the time of the recording is not in question, it would bound the kind of video editing people could plausibly claim that you could've done.

It's not foolproof - if you have enough face data of the person you want to frame and you've been to the room where the conversation takes place, you could have made a fake video beforehand and spliced it into the conversation at the time of the recording. But that would at least take a lot of preparation and quite a bit of luck and timing to find a place in the conversation that's just long enough to copy your edited version in without arousing suspicion. For dashcam videos it would be difficult to merge your edit with existing traffic, etc...

> Of course, now that video editing is cheap and difficult to spot, who knows if your evidence will make much of a difference

There's a pretty substantial legal difference between the contested opinion of two people in court versus deliberately fabricating evidence to try and deceive a judge.

Suddenly your civil matter is now a criminal one.

The outrage isn't feigned; it just comes from a minority of people. The masses aren't established to "want this"; they may just not care.

They care to the degree they become aware of it and it's potential misuses.

This is something Richard Stallman has pointed out many times before. You need to tell people about these things, most of them simply do not know the extent of the issues but once they do know it, most are at least sympathetic to the cause.

There are multiple things we need to acknowledge:

- Consumers largely do not know these things. They are either not disclosed, or buried within a TOS that they cannot read. This is all done on purpose. The reason the TOS is obtuse, long, inaccurate, and updated weekly is so you won't read or understand it.

- In most markets there is no choice. For smartphones you do not have a choice, both Apple and Google do extensive surveillance. If you want to bank, get a job, and all around be successful, you have to swallow the surveillance cost. If you want a new car, again, no choice. If you work a job, again, no choice on the computer or software.

- It is not reasonable to expect consumers to do extensive research on everything they buy. Consumers have lives, children, jobs. They're not going to sit and spend 10+ hours researching every thing they buy, especially when most of that research is fruitless.

- There are tradeoffs with everything. Yes we can use Linux, I sure do. But for other consumers, now they need to spend a lot of time understanding that. Yes we can use Graphene OS, but certain apps won't work.

Traversing life without a cell phone is a fun experiment. Here and there I forget mine and spend a day without the distraction - glorious way to spend time.

> For all the feigned outrage, people want this, and will work hard every day to pay for the next iteration of the surveillance apparatus.

My sad realization is that the Buddhists were right all along. The primary drivers of human mind, before self-purification, are greed, anger, and ignorance. What you are describing here is greed. People want to get useful things for free. This is the core of the problem. If people were, by default, expecting to pay for everything they use, spying on them would not be accepted. Instead, they want stuff for free and they choose to be willfully blind to the spying.

> If people were, by default, expecting to pay for everything they use, spying on them would not be accepted.

The spying may have started with free products, but it has metastasized into every aspect of life, free or not. It always does.

> choose to be willfully blind to the spying

Many don't. They also, by and large, don't have a choice. Data brokers, Flock cameras, WiFi-based radar[1]. You really can only do so much as an individual before the only escape is being a hermit in a cave.

> The primary drivers of human mind, before self-purification, are greed, anger, and ignorance

Which then gets distilled into the only drivers of corporations. Corporations that then destroy all moral options for individuals.

[1]https://theweek.com/tech/wifi-signals-now-tracking-users-at-...

Funnily enough I've found for the most part the counter to all this spying also tends to be free products. Signal, pi-hole, ublock origin, graphene OS, Opnsense, Linux, etc. I have yet to find paid-for apps that are superior to the free ones in this regard. If I want an image editor I'm using Gimp, not Photoshop. Libreoffice is better than Microsoft Office if you don't want to be spied on. Most of the cost is learning about the alternatives and how to use them.

It's hard for me to take this perspective seriously when you describe a cellphone as "entirely optional". Our society is structured around the assumption that you'll have not just a cellphone, but a smartphone. Without acknowledging that, how can we have a realistic discussion? Many businesses require you to use a smartphone in some way. Some government services also require one.

Before cellphones, there were payphones everywhere for people to use when they needed to get into contact. Now there are hardly any left in most countries, so your ability to communicate would actually be worse than in the pre-cellphone era. Sure you could ask someone to use their phone, but if a stranger asked me that these days I would likely refuse.

I do not carry a cellphone. I am employed and live in a major city. I never think about not having one. I know multiple other people, also employed, living both rurally and in cities, who do not carry cellphones.

It is entirely optional.

Counterpoint: I could not do my job without one. Clients expect support over WhatsApp.

For sure, but you still do retain the option to leave it at work, unless you have some kind of 24/7 sales job. I do think privacy at work is not an option for most people.

> Clients expect support over WhatsApp

Seems very country / region specific?

Less and less though and you need to go through quite a bit of trouble sometimes already. Banking, gov apps, I know more and more companies you cannot enter nor clock in without smartphone etc. Sure, you can just resign, move country, try to find another bank; in the end you will run out of options as they are all moving there.

> I am employed and live in a major city. ... . I know multiple other people, also employed, living both rurally and in cities, who do not carry cellphones.

This doesn't mean much. I know multiple people who fit this description, live in the US, and can't speak or read English. However, speaking English isn't meaningfully optional. You will face constant limitations and problems in every aspect of life. There are people who don't use electricity, so I guess by your definition that's optional too?

> I never think about not having one.

Sure you don't.

Genuinely. Thinking back on it now, the only times I notice it is in some restaurants that don’t have paper menus out by default. I need to ask for one, which feels very odd and kind of awkward. This is the only instance I can think of.

What happens when you're meeting up with someone? With the folks I know who don't have a phone, this is always a real pain point because they don't have a way to communicate or receive changes of plans, "I'm going to be late", etc...

We agree on when to meet and where, and then we both actually show up. The whole last-minute plan changing thing is a pretty recent phenomenon, I believe.

Do you never have problems with transportation like breakdowns or accidents stopping the traffic for a while or having some sort of emergency where you need to drop everything an take care of it?

Not who you replied to, but I do sometimes have problems like this, and as a result I am sometimes an hour late with no warning. It's bad, but it only happens very rarely. This also sometimes happened when I did use a smartphone, if it ran out of battery (though, in hindsight, why didn't I bring a charger?).

How I operate as well. But noticed most people can not do this anymore. They will not pay attention to the details and (try to) call at the last minute to find the location.

For some folks I know who don't carry a cellphone, sometimes 'last minute" is any time after they leave home in the morning because they won't have their phone with them all day.

So many stores and (all?) banks require two-factor login now, where an SMS sent to a phone is the second factor. How do you cope with this?

I do not carry a cellphone, but I own an old one with no data plan that remains off and in a drawer except for when used for things like this. I am not sure I have run into any stores that require 2 factor. Mostly just official stuff like banks.

My work has multiple systems that require 2fa on a regular basis. It's actually quite annoying, and the alternative options to 2fa don't work for every system.

The glorious day in the future when Oauth is confined to the dust bin of history and logging in to anything doesn't require a web browser redirecting 10 times.

Oof, this is a problem at my workplace. Crew [1] and Connecteam [2] (workplace communication apps) both require an SMS code to sign in. Technically, you don't have to have a cell phone, because you can use a VoIP service, but it means that someone who does have a cell phone has to replace it with a VoIP service instead of just getting rid of it.

[1] https://crewapp.com/ [2] https://connecteam.com/

Not all banks require SMS. I use Chase bank and the two factors are my debit card and my PIN. I don't use any app, but instead just go to the ATM or talk to a human. Some things, like wiring money, have an extra charge if you don't use the app.

A major downside of this is that if someone did figure out how to withdraw a bunch of my money from my account, I wouldn't notice until I go to the bank, which I only do once per month or so. I wish my bank had an option to send me an email on every transaction, but as is I have to go to the ATM and request an email with the recent transaction info.

Partially as a result of this limitation, and partially because I enjoy playing the "Where's George?" game (which involves using cash), I pay for everything with cash and only use my debit card for withdrawing cash. I've heard that it's possible to get an ATM-only card for this purpose, so I will probably do that eventually, so that if someone gets my card information they will not be able to make online transactions.

The only reason I take my cell phone with me is in the event my truck breaks down. I have lost count of how many times I forgot it at home. I've had business tell me to install some app but I just tell them no or make them do the work for me. If they want money they will fill in the information. Over the years I have been parting ways from businesses that I can not walk in and talk face-to-face with someone and for good reason as it is getting harder and harder to reach a real person in customer support for online businesses. People are getting accounts disabled or deleted with no recourse.

A few years ago I bought a couch at Ikea, I wanted to get it delivered. They held out a QR code to a task rabbit link, after fighting with the code and bad reception and not wanting to make an account, they gave me the backup delivery method which was a day later but a whole lot cheaper and likely an actually insured delivery company.

The look of confusion on people's face when I don't want to scan a random code or install an app. It's my phone damnit, my phone shouldn't need software so you can sell me things.

"Our society is structured around the assumption that you'll have not just a cellphone, but a smartphone."

Except it really isn't, it just seems that way when you spend a bunch of time on your phone. As part of an utterly graceless transition to middle age I bailed on social media and have aggressively refused to engage with service-related apps of any kind (fuck mychart, drive-thru mobile apps, and the horse they rode in on). To the extent that I use my phone at all these days it's to check text messages, field calls, and (rarely) navigate via maps. I've reverted to the Old Ways (mailing paper checks, calling ahead to get live humans to explain shit, etc) and it's been pretty frictionless. I've yet to encounter a situation where I was prevented from doing anything because I didn't phone.

> mailing paper checks

Actually compared to signing in to a website, 2FA, dismissing the popups to explore new features, entering payment info, then confirming---writing a check and putting it in an envelope takes less time.

Depends on how long it takes me to find my checkbook but yeah pretty much, and it's a lot less irritating.

I don’t carry a cell phone, although I technically own one (it usually stays at home). For a while I had to tell a cashier that I don’t have a phone on occasion, but I’ve noticed that many places seem to be backing off on pushing their apps or requiring a phone for some part of the transaction.

I used to carry a legit dumbphone (not one of the new Android/AOSP “dumbphones”) and that worked just as well. It’s even trendy now!

> Most humans use Meta products regularly; also optional. For all the feigned outrage, people want this, and will work hard every day to pay for the next iteration of the surveillance apparatus.

This is a perfect example of the revealed-preference fallacy. The use of providers like Meta does not reflect a well-informed, freely chosen preference. Meta spends a ton of money to squash competition, remove viable alternatives, and to make their products addictive.

> This is a perfect example of the revealed-preference fallacy.

The fallacy here is that you think people should have difference preferences than they actually do. "People disagree with me? They must be ill-informed."

It is sometimes true that a large group of people hold a preference due to being misinformed, though. I don’t think a kneejerk assertion that GP is assuming their opinion is true and anyone who disagrees is an idiot is merited here.

Meta has done a lot of shitty things to acquire and addict users, and is analogous to a massive regional monopoly in the U.S. Both of those indicate that users of Facebook might be less than rational (in the economic sense) about their choice of social media product.

the main solution is the same as with many other problems - education on what's wrong + making the right way as easy as possible

it's easy to fall into complain hole, as that seems to fulfill the 1st part

but 2nd part is as much or even more valuable

> making the right way as easy as possible

I wish I knew what you were talking about here.

It seems like the easy way would be to forbid the collection of this data… but that is obviously not happening, so I need a different part 2.

consider what GP complained about - everyone carrying phones that data is collected from/by, and useing Meta products

making easier the alternatives to phone tracking means promoting life outside phones, promoting cellphones/OSes that don't spy on you and explaining ways to minimize tracking (like disabling apps' access to the internet)

making easier the alternatives to Meta means promoting competitors, promoting communication/image/information channels outside Meta, promoting life outside Meta products

defeatism is even worse than grumbles - it fulfills neither of the goals

Offering ‘just don’t use modern communication’ as a solution when ‘ban data collection and retention’ is right there feels like a way to derail the conversation rather than an honest proposal.

People wouldn't want this if they were adequately educated.

No, this is not the way to go. Consumers cannot possibly understand all potential ways in which they can be screwed over, and even if they could, it is entirely likely that there are no good choices because consumers will have to choose between e.g privacy violation or environmental destruction, or privacy violation of some degree vs another degree.

This is why governments exist.

> Consumers cannot possibly understand all potential ways in which they can be screwed over

In a democracy, consumers and the government are the exact same thing. Since they ostensibly do not understand all of the potential ways in which they can be screwed over, how is calling themselves government going to magically change that? Maybe you are imagining a dictatorship instead, where the government is only a subset of all consumers, but even then the dictators are still just feeble consumers themselves remaining within the subset of all consumers. Being a dictator doesn't make you omniscient; still only human like all the others.

Government exists to clean up the outliers who are not behaving in line with the wishes of the consumers, but that cleanup can only occur when their undesirable behaviour is out there for all to plainly see. You cannot enforce what you don't recognize.

> consumers will have to choose between e.g privacy violation or environmental destruction, or privacy violation of some degree vs another degree.

Temporarily, perhaps, but in a functioning market one of those consumers feeling underserved will rise up to offer what's missing, eventually satisfying consumers again. However, ironically, consumers often consider that undesirable behaviour and use government to block that rising from occurring. For some reason consumers prefer to protect the market incumbents even when they claim to not like what the incumbents are doing.

> In a democracy, consumers and the government are the exact same thing.

This is a straw man. Consumers are represented by representatives who should have their interests in mind, e.g the consumer votes for someone who in turn votes for outcomes. This means that there can absolutely be a difference in knowledge between the government and its citizens, and so no, they are not the exact same thing. One group is trying to do their job of being a citizen, while the other group should be doing their job of representing the interests of the citizens that voted on them in whatever is relevant. One job clearly should not involve making sure your privacy isn't constantly and covertly violated by foreign nationals, and one job clearly should. Which is which is an exercise for the reader.

> but in a functioning market

Great! Where can I find me one of those?

> Consumers are represented by representatives who should have their interests in mind

Exactly. Representatives are merely messengers, so they can only represent the consumers when sharing the message of the consumers to the extent that the consumers have already recognized. Furthermore, representatives are only consumers themselves, so even if you imagine them not as representatives but dictators who step up and act for the people based on how they believe the people want to be overseen rather than from working with citizens they still have all the same blind spots.

> Great! Where can I find me one of those?

Where consumers don't like protecting the market incumbents. But, make no mistake, consumers love nothing more than protecting market incumbents. It gives them something to complain about when idly chatting with each other. Great? Something tells me you wouldn't find it great at all.

> Representatives are merely messengers

No, that is not how representation works. The representative represents, i.e they act in the absence of the citizen. They are not the human equivalent of an email broker.

> representatives are only consumers themselves

No, they are informed experts, or have informed experts at their disposal, to deeply understand the subject matter at hand so they can weigh it against the broad wishes of whom they represent. Furthermore, they have the time and responsibility to use their knowledge wisely.

> but dictators who step up and act for the people

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up dictators. Dictators don't step up and act for the people, that's what representatives do in a democracy. Are you from the US by chance? In that case I can understand why this concept is new.

> consumers love nothing more than protecting market incumbents

This is like saying: consumers sure did love dying from polio before the vaccine was invented.

Now with super sized data centers (touted as primarily for 'AI'), you don't even need to choose between privacy violation and environmental destruction!!! So efficient!

And one wonders why there is a large amount of rhetoric toward anti-government is being thrown around nowadays. Cannot have the money train being controlled.

So much this. When my son turned 12, I told him how some of the various social media sites and smart technologies work, and he’s avoided social media altogether ever since (he’s now an adult). He always uses ad blockers and content filters, and he generally made good decisions around phone use, and other tech use from a privacy respecting perspective.

Prior to this discussion, he was eager to be on social media apps because other kids his age were on them. People respond to knowledge about these topics, but there isn’t a mainstream popular individual talking about it. Everyone is so silo’d, it would be quite difficult to reach people, and depending upon the political leanings of such a person, half the population would reactively go the opposite direction… on what really shouldn’t be partisan.

5G edge devices already have support for mmWave and beamforming. The ability to track the micromovements of a person’s trachea as they think in words (”internal monologue”) and reconstruct their thoughts from movement data reduces to a software problem: the hardware is there and the algorithms have been established in literature.

That is very interesting. I wasn’t aware of their ability to act as acoustic sensors. It makes sense, but it’s not my field so I hadn’t thought about it.

Any link to the trachea vibrations to reproduce inner monologue source?

I think the major shift with the 6g standard is that general purpose sensing is now explicit to the design and intended use of the system.

Almost every person installs security cameras hoping that one day they will "catch the criminal" unaware that the footage probably is used in all possible ways all the time, yet in case when the crime against them finally happens the footage might not be admitted as a proof.

> yet in case when the crime against them finally happens the footage might not be admitted as a proof.

Or there is simply not enough staff available to carry out the procedures needed to apprehend and charge the individual. Or a myriad of other things. People think law enforcement is easy.

If a right or affluent person is a victim of crime the resources will be available, funny is that people who think they are outsmarting someone with their security cameras are rarely among them.

No I install security cameras as a deterrent measure to keep people at my door front measured in their interactions, particularly when it may just be my wife at home alone.

They are mounted extremely obviously for this purpose.

I greatly hope they never catch anyone doing anything.

It's delightful to have paranoid neighbours who install cameras to enforce appropriate behavior in the neighbourhood. They always assure the camera doesn't record anything outside of their property and that they never check the recordings. Given the reason why they installed camera one can absolutely believe them. It's very calming.

I don't think they are optional in today's world. There's a lot of places where it would be prohibitive to try to live without a smartphone and what does it even cost to remove telemetry from a car?

6G standard for cell towers is planned to include ISAC (Integrated Sensing and Communication)

Yikes, was not aware of this

For anyone that didn't read that book, I can't recommend it highly enough.

What a wild, victim blaming take.

Zero people want to be surveilled. They want the other benefits that come with technology and reluctantly accept, as a cost, some lower of privacy.

The German CDU (basically their Republican party) is currently campaigning with the slogan "More mass surveillance!"

hey i just want to be able to install graphene os on my iphone hardware. if only.

so obama was doing what in 2019? are you an LLM trained in 2023?

I see no 2019. They changed it to 1999. So, six years before he was a senator. Could be, but seems implausible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com