The incidental and systemic benefits of the recordings are exciting to people and celebrated with stories. The hazards of this constant "pollution" of data — how it is slowly changing our society, our economy, our humanity — is harder to quantify or build opposition to.
It's a bit like climate change. Slow, invisible poison.
Law simply needs to internalize encryption. Your cameras are your property and only with consent of owner are they available to authorities.
Public cameras should only be decrypted for evidence to support litigation of crimes, not for police to search for violay, because the current gigantic book of laws has an implicit assumption of a difficulty to enforce.
If suddenly police could use AI to fully prosecute all violations of law then we have all the laws necessary for worse than totalitarian existence.
Every mile you drove in a car will be 10 violations of law. Laugh loud? Violation disturbance of peace. Stand looking at your email too long? Loitering. Cross a park? Dozens of environmental violations.
Sure by some interpretations. Unfortunately the current SCOTUS doesn’t see it that way, they think webcams and electronic surveillance should be in the constitution or authorities can do anything. If there isn’t a law or constitutional text to the effect then it doesn’t exist to them. So we have to approach this from actually getting a law passed.
TFA is about camera footage obtained via warrant (thus following due process). Do you think evidence should not be obtainable via warrant?
> Unfortunately the current SCOTUS doesn’t see it that way, they think webcams and electronic surveillance should be in the constitution or authorities can do anything.
I've definitely heard organic stories from people who got favorable insurance/legal outcomes after a traffic accident because they were using a dashcam. Generally, if you're not doing anything wrong, it is a good idea to record whatever you're doing, because it's proof that you're not doing anything wrong (police departments use this to great effect; they love bodycams in 99% of cases, and simply turn them off when they're about to do something that they wouldn't want to have a bodycam for). The negatives are second-order effects that only come about when everyone is doing it.
I’m sure the vast majority of them are. Occam’s razor version: fear sells. If you can appeal to the clutching pearls part of the psyche then you can win over people to the idea of constant surveillance as necessary because of the current “wave of crime”. No matter how much crime is down or how many rights have to be taken away for “public safety”. Most reporters are just trying to put food on the table and outside of freedom of the press they couldn’t care less.
Seems like if it’s technically possible, it will happen, and we can’t stop technological progress. In fact, you and I are probably profiting from that progress. Hard to ask a guy to do something that goes against his paycheck. Even if we vote politically “correct,” whomever that may be, what are you and I voting for with our wallets?
> Seems like if it’s technically possible, it will happen, and we can’t stop technological progress.
‘The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.’
Speak for yourself. My ancestors pre-industrial revolution were half starved tenant farmers making a subsistence living on too small plots of farmland in colonized Ireland, subject to random slaughter when the English changed their plans.
Now, our extended family is prosperous in the US, Australia and Ireland. We’re taller, healthier and mostly in professional or skilled trade jobs.
The past is often seen through a sepia tinted idealized slant. The past was full of suffering and brutality. Even warfare was just as brutal - in ancient times, Caesar slaughtered 1-2% of the global population in Gaul. In the 17th century, marauding armies picked regions cleaned and left thousands to starve.
War, disease, famine were the norm for eras past. For those who lived during those times, I reckon their level of perceived suffering was no more than ours today. Humans are tragically skilled at adapting to new standards and shifting the threshold of struggle. People today get frustrated over a delayed plane departure likely just as much as people in the past were over a storm delaying their caravan by a few days.
As much of a proponent of technology as I am, I often reflect on whether we are truly bending the arc of suffering in a positive direction, or if it has remained far more constant than we’d like to believe.
When the English army or paramilitary militia came to burn the ancestors out of house and home to make room for settlers, I doubt their level of suffering was “adjusted”.
If they were lucky, they starved in the woods, hiding like animals.
Small plots are _still_ a problem for most people . 'We' sort off worked around the small plots problem by having the industrial revolution come along and then made jobs available for those who had only small plots.
Hypothetically, if every human had an equal part of earth, relatively fewer would have been in the pathetic state that you mentioned in the per-industrial era, and even less so in the post-industrialization era.
I don’t know. People have been living without reliable access to food and potable water, not even talking about sore deformations on their faces, for a thousand years. But somehow their lives were fulfilling?
Yeah, I don’t see many of the people criticizing the Industrial Revolution opting into pre-industrial existences. I’m pretty minimalist, and I’ve grown up around the Amish and even they prefer to avail themselves of technology where they can. I think there’s a fair amount of romanticizing about a pre-industrial lifestyle. This obviously isn’t to argue that we should all live maximally consumerist lifestyles; I don’t think that’s true either.
Do you really think life was fulfilling before the Industrial Revolution? Most men toiled, watched their children and wives die, before dying at a young age themselves. Where was the fulfillment, exactly? You’re only able to contemplate that life could possibly be fulfilling because of the Industrial Revolution.
There was no art, poetry, craftsmanship, skill, talent, fame, friendship (or relationships of any kind), flavor, joy, celebration, or creativity before the Industrial Revolution. Gotcha.
Errr - not true. Pre Industrial Revolution you were either a serf or a lord. There were a few in the renaissance times who started getting an education and planting the seed of the Industrial Revolution. By and large your existence pre Industrial Revolution would have been at the mercy of your local lord.
Yes, there are negatives to the Industrial Revolution we have to overcome. But it’s a net positive for everyone.
You’re welcome to fantasize being someone’s slave. I’m not.
If we had to vote everything with our wallets Tesla wouldn't exist in the first place. We would have $5,000 trucks made by Burmese war prisoners that can reach 200mph on full self drive, running on palm oil without a catalytic converter.
I do not want to stop tech progress, but I do want to stop social regress. Give it another 20-30 years and we will have same shit problems with freedoms as China, Russia, insert your fav scapegoat here.
There is no difference to what the USA and UK have done and continue to do to Assange and what China and Russia do to journalists they don’t like.
The idea that the west are the “good guys” hasn’t been true for a long time, if ever. China is just better at technology and large scale coordination than the US, so they are way better at building and deploying and operating large scale surveillance systems. The US will catch up in a few decades.
I believe this is inevitable. There is no meaningful opposition to pervasive surveillance in US government and there is no useful political action that can be undertaken by the public to turn this tide.
Assange was killed with polonium or thrown out of a window? I think you have made your moral condemnation variable of Boolean type, rather than the more realistic float.
I think also it is worth distinguishing between corporate surveillance, where there are very few limits on what they can do with the data, vs government surveillance where we can exert some power over the government by electing people to pass laws that reflect our desire for privacy.
As well, I am surprised HN has not internalized Brin's essay "The Transparent Society." Privacy is going to be deeply reduced by the ability of all
curious 13 year olds to launch insect sized drones. The question is how to handle - let only the overseers have the data or insist on public right to access data. Or something else; like laws forcing personal ownership of your data (although how things like being in the background of your neighbors cameras as you walk down the street should be handled there I am not sure.).
I would also point out that freedom and privacy aren't identical - one may have freedom via privacy or via less intrusive laws. (Ed: deleted incomplete thought).
Early 2000s there was an unveiling of ARGUS-IS and if we have that and commercial companies know when daughters are pregnant before they tell their parents then stuff like the TV series Person of Interest seems all too plausible at least as far as mass surveillance AI exists. I doubt there is a Batman squad doing good on that level of technology out there hidden from society but there may be a military and CIA like op behind it.
There was tech to watch for what things you pick up and put back or dwell on in stores with cameras and heat maps and loyalty card tracking before 2005. it's not far off to get a person some computer thinks should be investigated based on patterns and data out there publicly.
This is a hardone for me. In the family we have - 2016 Tacoma, 2015 Rav4, 2016 Mini, 2019 Sprinter RV. None have driver assist, backup cameras only, etc. I've been thinking about dashcams, but only ones where I know what will be published where (IE, not the cloud), so I have a personal record for instance if the kid has an issue in the Mini.
No plans to upgrade or get new vehicles unless a dire need. For instance if Sprinter or Tacoma die, drive the not-dead one. (Sprinter is technially an RV, but used for business).
Is there any tangible reason that would actually weight enough to justify not actively wanting to provide basically free resources in help of uncovering (and in effect: preventing) a violent crime?
Because, if not, this is about as "creepy" as those nerdy guys sitting in their bedrooms and basements, tinkering with their silly computers all day, meaning: Non-conformist and something you might just not be ready to think about straight.
yes there is a valid reason to be opposed to this. Yes everyone one wants to stop violent crimes and murders and that is not a bad thing. But as history has shown time and time again if the people in power decide to become a tyrant and start to abuse the technology then we have a problem. Imagine if this was around 60 years ago. You go into a bar. Some cars have driven past the bar right as you entered a few weeks past. Now police realize this is actually a secret gay bar. They take all cars whose gps shows they passed the bar and take their footage. You are seen on camera entering a gay bar and now you are on a list and they start to harass you and question you. Seems like an unlikely situation that is far fetched but I like to remind people it was only in 1965 that the last person was arrested in Canada for homosexuality. He was even declared a dangerous sex offender. So no we don't want cameras recording every second of our lives. Things that may be legal today might not be tomorrow so we should have privacy from constant surveillance.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/everett-klippert-lgbt-a...
What you are good at picking up is incidents. That is how we work. How many lives would be saved by using Tesla for surveillance is a lot less tangible, and thus, meaningless in direct comparison. Because there is no comparison, if we don't feel it compares.
Whenever I see people seriously argue against statistics by leaning on stories, it tends to be complicated and sinister. If you are that afraid of your government, if you deem your government to be that irresponsible and also out of your control, that on average you would rather not default support it when fighting crime, then I think you are you confused about what battle you should actually be fighting.
It is not necessarily my government I am fighting for. Coming from the west I feel we sometimes lead the way for human rights and our standards should really be highly debated and analyzed to make sure they are what a society truly believes. If we start to say that mass surveillance is good and sure maybe we have checks and balances but another nation might not stop where we do. So to be opposed to complete surveillance is probably smart for now until we can decide what is the best way to address this. If you think Tesla cameras are so good you should also consider how good it would be if we all had cameras installed in every room in our house and the government could listen in every conversation and decide if we are good or bad or talk about crimes.
Our freedom comes from sources other than technological privacy. It comes from our ability to be in charge of the law and to make the normal fun we want to be legal, legal.
I would be mich more concerned with regulatory capture by the spying corporations or laws passed by a minority seeking to impose a religious based set of laws than car cameras.
As you point out, you can be arrested for being gay without all those cameras, but the possibility of making laws to protect the right to be gay is also doable.
And if you don't think any sort of consumer right to own your data law will be lobbied against by Google and Meta lobbiests, well I think you are wrong.
With proper checks and balances in a civilian government, sure. The problem is when private companies help police departments do a runaround constitutional protections. Users have no sovereignty over their data (so to speak).
What does the 4th Amendment have to say about this? The guiding philosophy at the time 4A was framed is "the public is entitled to every man's evidence".
They're towing cars. You think they bring them back 30 minutes later and leave a friendly note? Unreasonable search and seizure. I'd say the seizure of property worth tens of thousands of dollars as evidence for a crime the owner was not involved in is pretty unreasonable.
They're towing cars pursuant to warrants issued when the owners of those cars can't be identified and the cars contain evidence of homicides. "Reasonable" search and seizure is almost literally "whatever a judge decides".
