Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 205 posts

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#61

Post by slt2021 »

BoorishBears wrote: post #40
slt2021 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then prison as a punishment will stop becoming a punishment and will reduce incentive to abide by laws

If how terrible prison is what backs your incentive to abide by laws, I'm worried. Criminals generally don't expect to be caught, the quality of prison doesn't matter much if you're not planning on going there.

there is always risk/reward calculation.

if you replace prison time with home arrest, then you remove downside to being caught. Especially for second/Nth time offenders.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#62

Post by slt2021 »

yamtaddle wrote: post #36
slt2021 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then prison as a punishment will stop becoming a punishment and will reduce incentive to abide by laws

You think... the threat of abuse and assault by inmates and guards is something we should keep around on purpose ?

yes because there are always will be some criminals in population, and you want to keep the system bad so that others' wont ever think of committing crime, especially juveniles and first time offenders

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#63

Post by BoorishBears »

slt2021 wrote: post #61
BoorishBears wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If how terrible prison is what backs your incentive to abide by laws, I'm worried. Criminals generally don't expect to be caught, the quality of prison doesn't matter much if you're not planning on going there.

there is always risk/reward calculation. if you replace prison time with home arrest, then you remove downside to being caught. Especially for second/Nth time offenders.

If you're good with risk/reward you generally don't do crime (at least, not the kind that doesn't already leave you in the kind of minimum security-style prison being proposed here).

In 2015 the average robbery netted less than $2,000 while the average sentence length was almost 10 years.

Risking 10 years of your life for $2,000 isn't something that people who understand risk/reward will do, how bad things are while you spend those 10 years is basically a rounding error compared to just how terrible of an idea it already is.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#64

Post by pessimizer »

tetromino_ wrote: post #50
HWR_14 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is, he didn't opt in to being surveilled by Amazon. That it had a positive outcome is irrelevant to the point. It's a strange anecdata. What's the difference between what you wrote and responding to someone who is in favor on limits of publicly brandishing guns with: I don't know about your neighbor. But my neighbor (a black man, fyi) was very happy that I sat on my porch with a loaded shotgun every evening…

The difference is that your example is made-up while mine is true, recent, and (I believe) representative of normal people's attitudes. Normal people love cameras because normal people much prefer being surveilled by Amazon (or, in most cases, by Amazon's cheaper and less secure Chinese competitors in the camera business) vs. having their home broken into and their pawnable electronics stolen.

> and (I believe) representative of normal people's attitudes.

So you're not against making things up if you can make this up, so why not go along with the hypothetical?

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#65

Post by monetus »

slt2021 wrote: post #62
yamtaddle wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think... the threat of abuse and assault by inmates and guards is something we should keep around on purpose ?

yes because there are always will be some criminals in population, and you want to keep the system bad so that others' wont ever think of committing crime, especially juveniles and first time offenders

I've always called this the "head on a pike" rationale.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#67

Post by buildyourown »

As nerds we have an advantage here. We can use prosumer/professional oriented tech that respects your privacy more. Don’t get a Ring. Use your own cameras and a Synology and, if you must, their e2e-encrypted backup solution.

If there’s no privacy-respecting equivalents, then… do without.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#68

Post by Animats »

anigbrowl wrote: post #21

slightly off topic, but: Growing up in Detroit under the specter of the police unit STRESS—an acronym for “Stop the Robberies, Enjoy Safe Streets” ...am I the only one heartily sick of propagandistic backronyms? The branding of public policy is a disturbing (and long-running) symptom of institutional capture. This example is particularly totalitarian, inflicting a reminder of STRESS on an entire community. Of course,…

The Detroit PD STRESS unit was disbanded after, through miscommunication and trigger-happiness, they got into a shootout with Wayne County sheriff's deputies.[1]

[1] https://www.robertankony.com/blog/the-rochester-street-massa...

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#69

Post by WWLink »

buildyourown wrote: post #67

As nerds we have an advantage here. We can use prosumer/professional oriented tech that respects your privacy more. Don’t get a Ring. Use your own cameras and a Synology and, if you must, their e2e-encrypted backup solution. If there’s no privacy-respecting equivalents, then… do without.

Use your own cameras. Like the ones made by Dahua! I mean, that's bad so just buy the ones with the Amcrest sticker slapped on them that still runs the same firmware and has the same hardware. :D

Source: I have a few Amcrest cameras and am sad at how much it'll cost to switch over to Unifi Protect.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#70

Post by Havoc »

People desire the sensors and metrics and integration etc...not the Amazon overlord part.

The article pitches it as something people willingly embrace which doesn't seem correct to me. Its more like reluctantly accept due to the benefits.

I'm personally hoping that a lot of this becomes more accessible via the Matter protocol

Post reply on HN