[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.

[com2kid]

Fair enough. :) I imagine you have better front desk security than the places I've worked!

I'd still argue that the majority of workers are under surveillance, at least in cities.

[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.