In my city, we are working on an ordinance to put oversight of surveillance technology into the hands of a community commission. Definitely hundreds, but possibly thousands, of people have called in, emailed in, or otherwise commented in support of our efforts.
Saying the public doesn't care about surveillance is oft-repeated reductionism, even around HN, and I think we could level-up ever so slightly by widely admitting that average people are just as complex as you, and have lots of interesting cares, when the context is right.
Saying the public doesn't care about surveillance is oft-repeated reductionism, even around HN, and I think we could level-up ever so slightly by widely admitting that average people are just as complex as you, and have lots of interesting cares, when the context is right.
I'm not arguing they are simpletons who just don't understand tech, but it's quite clear that most people don't care enough to do anything about it. take me as an example. in the abstract, I dislike being the subject of surveillance. but in practice, I don't care enough to sacrifice the convenience of the google ecosystem. I certainly don't care enough to replace my android phone with an iphone, even though I could afford it.
You could have said the same thing about food back in the early 20th century. I dislike adulterated food just as much as anybody but in practice I don't care enough grow my own food even though I could afford it.
Even if the public cares and is able to restrict government surveillance, how will we stop private surveillance?
For a couple hundred dollars I can install a computer-vision enabled camera that tracks and logs the face of everyone that passes, the clothes you are wearing and each car that passes. Security systems like Verkada already do this, and it is perfectly legal for companies to install these overlooking busy streets and public areas.
This tech will only get cheaper, smaller, and harder to notice. It's ridiculous to think that mass surveillance will be beaten.
Comments
In my city, we are working on an ordinance to put oversight of surveillance technology into the hands of a community commission. Definitely hundreds, but possibly thousands, of people have called in, emailed in, or otherwise commented in support of our efforts.
Saying the public doesn't care about surveillance is oft-repeated reductionism, even around HN, and I think we could level-up ever so slightly by widely admitting that average people are just as complex as you, and have lots of interesting cares, when the context is right.
I'm not arguing they are simpletons who just don't understand tech, but it's quite clear that most people don't care enough to do anything about it. take me as an example. in the abstract, I dislike being the subject of surveillance. but in practice, I don't care enough to sacrifice the convenience of the google ecosystem. I certainly don't care enough to replace my android phone with an iphone, even though I could afford it.
You could have said the same thing about food back in the early 20th century. I dislike adulterated food just as much as anybody but in practice I don't care enough grow my own food even though I could afford it.
Even if the public cares and is able to restrict government surveillance, how will we stop private surveillance?
For a couple hundred dollars I can install a computer-vision enabled camera that tracks and logs the face of everyone that passes, the clothes you are wearing and each car that passes. Security systems like Verkada already do this, and it is perfectly legal for companies to install these overlooking busy streets and public areas.
This tech will only get cheaper, smaller, and harder to notice. It's ridiculous to think that mass surveillance will be beaten.
How would this possibly work?
It's already working in 9 jurisdictions. Oakland is the most prominent. Seattle, San Fran are in there too.
Happy to tell you, or anyone who is curious, about it! Email in my profile.