[flir]

The tech's there. The genie can't be put back in the bottle, and it will only get cheaper and more invasive. Only question we have any control over is... do we want everyone to have it, or only govs and corps?

There's a second-amendment-like argument here, imo, that is very hard to push back on - because at least this stuff doesn't kill people. I want every cop to be surrounded by five or six recording devices that they don't control at all times - it's the least worst option.

(Obviously I'm not a fan of the "everying goes to facebook" architecture. I'm hoping we get past that).

[yuliyp]

The tech's also been there to put cameras everywhere, and to wiretap every phone, etc. We put guardrails in place to control how that tech is deployed.

[awesome_dude]

Very limited guard rails (WRT cameras) - they can't be in bathrooms is about all I am aware of as a universal restriction

[senordevnyc]

Man, I can’t tell if this is sarcastic or not…

[yuliyp]

Not sarcastic, but I probably didn't convey the subtlety of what I was trying to say in a one line comment. I was objecting to the defeatist "oh the tech is there, so we can't do anything about it" attitude. I tried to choose the examples I chose that the tech being there definitely has some consequences and significant privacy implications, but some controls exist too (like, wiretaps are still applied very selectively, there's been a growing movement against Flock cameras and scaling back of their deployments in some places recently).

[NicuCalcea]

We can't put the genie back in the bottle, but we can control how we react to it. As far as I'm concerned, I will treat people wearing smart glasses the same way I would treat someone shoving a smartphone camera in my face. I'll just refuse to engage with them.

[wizzwizz4]

Are you forgetting Google Glass? We put this genie back into the bottle once: we can do it again.

[rightbyte]

I was going to write something about that. The "techno fatalism" is annoyingly strong nowadays.

[Forgeties79]

They haven’t even sold 10mill units. We can still say no.

[convolvatron]

you're implying there is some kind of symmetry here, that facial recognition will empower individuals in a way to counteract the power given to governments and corporations.

I should try to compile my own database of everyone's location? I fail to see how it helps me in any way

[thereisnospork]

You as an individual? Probably not, but you could lobby your local government to, for instance, require any such dataset taken from information in the public be subject to the freedom of information act.

[Forgeties79]

This is all theoretical and pie in the sky stuff, just to be blunt. People are not going to organize like this in any meaningful way. It is going to be generally just bad for society.

We have traffic/crime cams all over the place. We’ve done nothing to flip that on its head. A little minor vandalism here and there and some bad press. Why would this be any different?

[fwip]

Victims of stalking would likely be greatly harmed by such a rule.

[jimbokun]

If only people already had recording device in their pocket they take with them everywhere…

[Cider9986]

This is more like putting hidden cameras in hotels. The difference is the discrete factor and the facial recognition. Both are disgusting imo.

[kstrauser]

How often you see someone taping a phone to their head and wearing it into a bathroom?

It's sociopathic to wear spywear in a public setting.

[flir]

What about bodycams on public servants?

(I think the precise form factor is something of a distraction. I'm talking about cheap, tiny, always-on cameras hooked up to giant hard discs in the sky, however they're packaged).

[kstrauser]

Bodycams that just record video: I'm fine with that. There's a clear societal benefit to it, and if you see a uniformed police officer, you presume your actions are being witnessed (if only by the human police officer). I'm way less skeeved out by a policeman carrying a gun than some drunk rando in a bar.

Bodycams that feature face recognition: Not OK, whether it's law enforcement or some weirdo at a night club. The former, because I don't want to live in a society where police log civilians' movements. The latter, because it's creepy with civilians do it, too.

[flir]

> Bodycams that feature face recognition: Not OK, whether it's law enforcement or some weirdo at a night club.

Ok, but... you know it's inevitable, right? Shops are already doing it, the first weirdo doing it at a nightclub is probably going to be the doorman (transferring the old "do not accept checks from this man" mugshots to the digital realm), I don't know about other countries but the UK police are doing it (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-use-of-fac...).

One of the advantages of bodycams for the police is that the people they deal with get a bit better behaved when they know they're on camera. I'm saying we should have that advantage too. (This is "an armed society is a polite society" redux - a surveilled society is a polite society?)

Check out David Brin's concept of the Transparent Society. He's been banging on about this for a couple of decades, and he's a deeper thinker and more persuasive than I am. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society

I stress I believe transparency is the least-worst option available to us, not the most desirable option.

[jazzyjackson]

It’s not inevitable if people choose to make it illegal. Illinois for one has strict laws around collecting bioinformatics.