[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.