[maltalex]

Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you?

The trade-off between the convenience of having an always-on camera and living in a society in which everyone has an always-on cameras seems like a no-brainer to me.

There's even a Black Mirror episode like that - "The Entire History of You".

[konart]

>Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you?

I'm pretty sure humanity is already past the point where this question is timely. We have many cameras watching us all day long and ten years from now there will be even more. For what it's worth, maybe this will finally teach people to thing before they act.

[maltalex]

> I'm pretty sure humanity is already past the point where this question is timely. We have many cameras watching us all day long and ten years from now there will be even more.

Really? Do you have cameras looking at you all day at work? Or at home, while interacting with your family? I hope not. I also hope that you'd object to any attempts to put such a device.

It's true that society by and large accepts CCTV cameras in public places. But that's not the same as equipping everyone with an always-on camera and having every human interaction recorded. That's just dystopian.

> For what it's worth, maybe this will finally teach people to thing before they act.

That's the oldest argument in the book. And sure, it's true. If you point a camera at people, they will behave "better". But that's insane, that's like saying that since children are most likely to be abused at home, then we should outlaw parenting, and have the state raise all kids using only state-certified™ personnel. Sure, that might work, but it kinda seems like we're losing something important along the way, no?

Having everyone "act better" is a good cause. But surveillance comes at a huge social cost, not to mention the potential for abuse by the watchers or those who decide what "better" is. Your "act better" might be a long way off the government's idea of how it would like citizens to behave.

[com2kid]

> Do you have cameras looking at you all day at work?

Anyone who works in an office complex does. Anyone who works in a retail store does. Bus drivers have cameras recording the entire time the bus engine is on.

Aside from a farmer in a field, I'm hard pressed to think of a job that doesn't take place under a security camera. Taxi Driver, delivery agents, street food vendors, and people who work at home remotely.

[khedoros1]

> Anyone who works in an office complex does.

Maybe change that to "many people"; "anyone" isn't accurate. For example, at my workplace, there are security cameras at a couple of the doors, but none in the office itself. I don't think I'd stay long if there were a bunch of cameras here.

[com2kid]

> Maybe change that to "many people"; "anyone" isn't accurate. For example, at my workplace, there are security cameras at a couple of the doors, but none in the office itself. I don't think I'd stay long if there were a bunch of cameras here.

All the big tech cos I've seen have cameras everywhere. The cameras aren't typically for the employees, they are to keep visitors from walking off with valuables.

I've heard of my coworkers having entire computers swiped, and smaller items like phones were also at risk. An old office manager had someone go through a pallet of desktops and haul more than one of them off.

With many millions of dollars of hardware just sitting around, not to mention the IP contained on the machines, security cameras are a rather good idea.

These buildings are of course locked, but lots of vendors pass through, and determined people can tailgate past checkpoints.

[khedoros1]

I'll explain my counterexample further.

I work at an office of a large tech company. I've worked in this office for almost 10 years at this point, and was here as we acquired 3/4 of the building (we shared with 3 other tenants when I started, and now are renting the entire building). We did some massive renovations when the previous tenants left, and I was in-office during the buildout. There are cameras at some entrances. There are cameras in the lab. There are not cameras anywhere in the main office areas.

I'm part of "anyone", and so are my several hundred coworkers here, and the hundreds that have worked here in the past.

[vkou]

> Anyone who works in an office complex does.

My office is full of cameras.

None of them are pointed at my workspace.

It's the difference between having the street full of cameras, and having them pointed at my living room window.

[cr0sh]

> Aside from a farmer in a field

While not constant, farmers probably do have cameras "pointed on them" in their fields - land surveys using aerial and satellite photo capability are common. I'm sure competitors also overfly each other's fields using drones and whatnot to keep tabs on who is growing what and when. Plus there's the fact that some farmers use drones on their own fields for a variety of reasons (though this last doesn't really count).

[viraptor]

Taxi drivers have cameras pointed at the customers often.

But I'm surprised you can't find other examples. The bank I go to has a camera. Maybe the supermarket at the exits. That's pretty much it for the town - almost everyone I interact with has no cameras. Some never will - for example doctors.

[nightski]

Many of us remote/home office workers do not. I'd like to keep it that way.

[konart]

>Really? Do you have cameras looking at you all day at work? Or at home, while interacting with your family? I hope not. I also hope that you'd object to any attempts to put such a device.

Okay, this was a generalization and exaggeration on my part (to a certain extent that is), but at the same time - how many cameras (notebook, smartphone etc) do you have at home at any give time? At the office? Security cameras are everywhere, any modern business center have dozens of them on each floor.

>That's just dystopian.

Sounds dystopian. And you don't need to equip everyone with them. Police, CCTV, transport (busses, taxis etc) will cover most of it. http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-42248056/in-your... - this will be everywhere soon enough.

>that's like saying that since children are most likely to be abused at home, then we should outlaw parenting, and have the state raise all kids using only state-certified™ personnel.

Two differenct things here. If we are to compare those to IT support - parenting is the last line of support (in fact parents are the developers in this case). But you also need to make sure that kids who happen to be born into a bad family\neighbourhood also behave. Yes, you shouldn't just put a collar on them, but instead try to help them somehow - that's the 2nd line of support. 1st line of support is the CCTV's AI that will monitor them to keep things under control.

In other words - I'm not trying to say that one should be replaced by the other.

>potential for abuse

This risk in always out there. Gun control, police, drug stores you name it.

[throwaway2048]

This is a common tactic in normalizing stuff people are uncomfortable with "its already been that way for X years why are you complaining now".

Besides the fact this statement is inaccurate (there are not infact security cameras everywhere, footage is not centralized and analyized by huge powerful parties), It in no way somehow justifies the situation as it stands, or will stand if these become popular.

[konart]

>there are not infact security cameras everywhere, footage is not centralized and analyized by huge powerful parties

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-42248056/in-your...

You just wait.

>there are not infact security cameras everywhere

Well, depending on where you live of course. You won't find a single one in Somali most likely.

Anyway, as I've already said - I'm not trying to justify anything.

[starsinspace]

> maybe this will finally teach people to thing before they act.

I think it'll rather lead to a homogenization of behavior. A dystopia I don't want to live in.

[dwighttk]

some people don't have "many cameras watching" us all day.

[gpm]

That camera is already pointed at me, via security cameras, strangers cell phones, etc. This just makes the situation symmetric.

So yes, I would be fine with that.

[dsfyu404ed]

No all of us live in the UK or some city that has cameras everywhere. Private CCTV footage and most government footage not part of a dragnet collection program is usually discarded after a few weeks or months if it's not needed. Cell phones are not always on.

I agree that everything being recorded all the time is somewhat inevitable considering the way things are going. While this does make the situation symmetric to some extent as far as the capacity to record interesting things goes. However, I believe that in the foreseeable future the negatives outweigh the positives.

You might be able to get the clerk at the DMV to be nicer if they're on camera but your ability to influence society with the ability to record video doesn't extend much beyond there.

Only the incumbents (tech giants and the government) have the ability to store and mine this sort of data for interesting things that are only interesting in retrospect. You do not have access to a big chunk of the data set. Your bank, insurance company and government do. They can mine that data to punish you or others for whatever behavior they deem bad and to extract compliance to their whims. You, neither as a individual nor as part of a group do not have the capacity to do the same analysis, the means to use what you learn to manipulate individuals. Even if you did you don't have access to a large enough chunk of the data set.

Until the power to access and draw meaning from this sort of data is in everyone's hands the situation is not symmetric. I hope you and those who agree with you reconsider your opinions.

[gpm]

The proposal wasn't dragnet surveillance. It was everyone walking around with a rolling 30-second video buffer that they can chose to save. There is no giant record for someone to datamine.

Not living in the UK doesn't change much, it goes from "in public I'm always possibly on camera" to "in public I'm always possibly on camera" everywhere, not just the Uk.

My ability to influence society with a camera is far beyond "the DMV clerk being nicer". It's being able to hold the cop who pulls me over accountable. Being able to get video of the van that hit a parked car and sped off. Being able to submit proof that the person I saw trying to open the doors on a bunch of parked cars was actually trying to do that. The second two are real examples that have happened to me within the last 6 months, the first one is a real example that you can easily see the utility of via verifiable stories on the internet.

And even if you think my ability to influence society is minimal with it, that's fine, ability to influence society wasn't why people above were asking for it.

[dsfyu404ed]

>There is no giant record for someone to datamine.

It's laughable to think there won't be cloud integration. Having automatic or one click upload is probably one of the most powerful features. People want to be able to post stuff on snapchat, store it in drive/dropbox, etc. The data sets will be mined just like existing social media is mined.

>Not living in the UK doesn't change much, it goes from "in public I'm always possibly on camera" to "in public I'm always possibly on camera" everywhere, not just the Uk.

The UK goes particularly far (for a western country) when it comes to mining the data to recognize and track people. That's why I chose it as my example.

>My ability to influence society with a camera is far beyond "the DMV clerk being nicer". It's being able to hold the cop who pulls me over accountable. Being able to get video of the van that hit a parked car and sped off. Being able to submit proof that the person I saw trying to open the doors on a bunch of parked cars was actually trying to do that. The second two are real examples that have happened to me within the last 6 months, the first one is a real example that you can easily see the utility of via verifiable stories on the internet.

Same general idea, multiple implementations. All the things you listed are about on the same order.

>And even if you think my ability to influence society is minimal with it, that's fine, ability to influence society wasn't why people above were asking for it.

I agree. Having a "record the last 30sec of my life" button would be super useful. Every time I see something funny, I could scroll back , take a screenshot and post it online so my buddies can get a laugh. That's useful. I think it would also be incredibly dangerous at scale because it will be easy for the incumbents to use to influence society.

Basically everything I'm saying here has been said about Facebook/Google, etc. The difference I see in this case is that I think that by reducing the friction of recording/uploading to near zero the effects will be magnified.

[gpm]

> It's laughable to think there won't be cloud integration.

Doesn't matter if there is cloud integration, there won't be constant livestreaming simply due to bandwidth constraints. Occasional 30 second segments is not dragnet surveillance or substantially worse than what is currently available. People aren't going to be randomly uploading themselves walking down the street - because why would they. The location data android uploads by default is far worse.

> Same general idea, multiple implementations. All the things you listed are about on the same order.

A cop not beating someone up, illegally searching your car, illegally fining you, etc is not on the "same order" as "a DMV worker being nicer".

Stopping criminal behaviour is not on the same order as "a DMV worker being nicer".

[PJDK]

I think one of the reasons people don't like the idea is this very reason.

It's coming from the position "someone is likely to do me wrong and I will be collecting evidence with that in mind". That in itself is a pretty aggressive position to take - but once you interact with someone it then says "_you_ are likely to do me wrong".

[gpm]

It's not a position of "someone is likely to do me wrong", it's a position of "someone is likely to do society wrong". Interacting with someone isn't an accusation...

It's a well supported position by the fact that I seem to witness theft (bikes, from cars, etc) in plain view on the street with a frequency of about once a year. Double that if you include things like hit and runs on parked cars that aren't exactly malicious but more crimes of opportunity.

I suspect that frequency is higher for me than for most people - simply because I walk a lot and I live downtown in a big city (Toronto). But if you change "6 monts to a year" to "3 - 6 years", applied over a city of a few million people that is still extremely significant.

I suspect things like police abuse of power are much rarer still, but the impact from them is so larger it's also a significant factor (why there is the huge movement for bodycams...).

[dsfyu404ed]

I think whether that position is reasonable depends on whether you see people as trustworthy by default or not.

Most people would not have a problem having every minute of their workday recorded if their job was handling gold bars or diamonds or something really high stakes.

Having even the most trivial interactions between people subject to a recording is inappropriate overkill if you believe people to be trustworthy.

It's like requiring a notarized bill of sale for a used laptop.

If you believe people to be untrustworthy by default then you would consider everyone having the ability to discreetly record any interaction with anyone else to be a net positive.

[briandear]

> No all of us live in the UK or some city that has cameras everywhere.

For now. The UK wasn't always covered in surveillance either.

[shpx]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society

[naasking]

> Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you?

If the camera had a light indicating when it was actually recording, that seems better. There are probably many small changes to make such cameras more acceptable.

[oarsinsync]

Google for “activate webcam without light”

Ever noticed people have covered their laptop cameras even though they have a light to indicate if it’s on?

How do you do that to someone else’s camera that has been remote activated with the light disabled?

[naasking]

You don't make it software controlled, you hardwire it so it can't be hacked.