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

131–140 of 205 posts

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#131

Post by civilized »

radicaldreamer wrote: post #14
ewzimm wrote: post #5

If there were an Amazon Prison option, I wonder how many people would choose it. Need to serve time? Skip the cell and stay home with a robust suite of real-time behavior analytics to ensure compliance. Conversations are processed locally and scanned for restricted subjects with advanced AI. A special Amazon Prison store offers a full suite of approved products with automatic payments, accessible with Alexa, and cust…

Why would you not choose this over what prison is currently like? This is like asking whether people would prefer home confinement to being in a prison cell

But Big Tech is involved, so we are expected to be enraged.

Well, I can easily one-up this. The Agricultural Revolution was a mistake. We should have remained hunter gatherers.

(Lots of people believe this, or claim to)

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#132

Post by sangnoir »

radicaldreamer wrote: post #14
ewzimm wrote: post #5

If there were an Amazon Prison option, I wonder how many people would choose it. Need to serve time? Skip the cell and stay home with a robust suite of real-time behavior analytics to ensure compliance. Conversations are processed locally and scanned for restricted subjects with advanced AI. A special Amazon Prison store offers a full suite of approved products with automatic payments, accessible with Alexa, and cust…

Why would you not choose this over what prison is currently like? This is like asking whether people would prefer home confinement to being in a prison cell

> Why would you not choose this over what prison is currently like?

Because there would be no upper limit to the number of people you can imprison - limited space in prisons provides vital societal back-pressure on which crimes are considered serious enough for custodial sentences.

In general, the inefficiencies in the justice system are good because they force prioritization. What would be the impact on society if crime detection, deliberation and rulings were all automated?

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#133

Post by j-bos »

colechristensen wrote: post #103
buildyourown wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recycling is a scam. It mostly just gets trashed on the other end. All the time and money spent on it would be better spent elsewhere. It’s just a massive feel good exercise.

Recycling metal isn’t a scam, especially aluminum where a surprisingly high percentage of the amount of aluminum ever produced is still in use and it can be recycled to a pristine state with much less energy than producing from ore.

Agree, recycling aluminum is not a scam. Talk about plastic ehhhh. Or plastic coated paper. Or overly soiled paper. Or rubber tires.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#134

Post by colechristensen »

j-bos wrote: post #133
colechristensen wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recycling metal isn’t a scam, especially aluminum where a surprisingly high percentage of the amount of aluminum ever produced is still in use and it can be recycled to a pristine state with much less energy than producing from ore.

Agree, recycling aluminum is not a scam. Talk about plastic ehhhh. Or plastic coated paper. Or overly soiled paper. Or rubber tires.

There are actually some developing technologies which really do transform some polymers back to plastic precursors which could recreate full quality materials, but these are all at a pilot project stage or earlier.

But really until we get to a renewable majority power production, any garbage with carbon in it should just be burned in power plants designed for that kind of thing.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#135

Post by code_duck »

__d wrote: post #111
sneak wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m torn on this one; as a photographer and videographer I find the right to shoot or film anything I can see from a legal vantage point very near and dear to me. We should always be legally allowed to film public places. Europe’s legislative approach to this is wrong, I think, but I see the problem. Perhaps we need different societal norms.

I'm ok with it being legal to photograph, video, or record audio of public spaces without people . I'm pretty sure I'd prefer that photographing, filming, or audio recording me in an identifiable way was illegal without my explicit consent. I think public officials should be subject to recording while performing their duties . I think celebrities should not, unless they explicitly consent. Security cameras might need…

So if someone is visiting a town and desires to take a photo of a landmark, they can't take it unless nobody is visible in the photo? How would anyone ever take photos of the Great Wall or the US Capitol or the like?

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#136

Post by Gigachad »

dinvlad wrote: post #126
_jal wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imo the wearables are more of a status thing than anything All jewelry signals status. Wearables just add some functions to the ancillary time telling. One thing I think it interesting about the status marker of wearables is that it is a bit tied to its origin at the moment. Maybe that will wear off in time, but as of now, they have a whiff of "white collar drone" to them. The really wealthy people I know wear (ver…

Interestingly, Apple Watch was initially designed to compete with Rolex, but then Apple found out that folks who can afford Rolex don’t want to change it for anything else. Hence, the mass-market pivoted Watch was born.

There is also the fact that a Rolex lasts for ages so the high price is made up by the fact you aren’t burning the cash, you are just converting it in to an asset you can sell later. The Apple Watch will be worthless ewaste in 10 years so they can never charge luxury watch prices.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#137

Post by lotsofpulp »

cr4nberry wrote: post #80

There's something weird about wearables and also recent advances in home surveillance. I see people posting here that the customers don't want surveillance, they want metrics. But, like... why? What's the appeal? People will spend hundreds of dollars on something like an Apple watch, and all it really does is make texts and calls slightly more convenient (I don't buy it) and give you little metrics to look at. People…

> Not only this, but once you normalize them who's to say things like this[0] won't happen? Who's to say insurance companies don't start nudging them harder until Congress does something about it?

Why should someone not be able to monetize their discipline to exercise and eat healthy?

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#138

Post by aj7 »

ewzimm wrote: post #129
belfalas wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You jest, but most likely someone at Amazon will read this and think to themselves: "you know...the for-profit private prison industry is ripe for disruption. This could be a good lead." Also, what you describe has been done before in history. In the 19th century in the US there were "Pullman Towns" - everything from A to Z owned by the Pullman company. "Get baptized in a Pullman church, go to a Pullman school, work…

I had those “Pullman Towns” in mind. This type of system opens up obvious opportunities for exploitation, but so do our existing prison systems. If we ever did replace prisons, I think it would involve something like this. Since Amazon Prison is so close to life already, we might all benefit from thinking about how to solve its issues. As the legal system necessitates lawyers, a digital prison might need digital advo…

How about willfully admitting yourself into the Amazon prison, to build up prison credits. By so doing, you could commit small crimes with impunity, using your already earned credits to skip punishment. Hmm. The rich already commit large crimes, and skip punishment, using MONEY.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#139

Post by MichaelCollins »

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 ?

If the government doesn't provide some measure of retributive justice, people will seek it themselves, and that is much worse for society.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#140

Post by sneak »

__d wrote: post #111
sneak wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m torn on this one; as a photographer and videographer I find the right to shoot or film anything I can see from a legal vantage point very near and dear to me. We should always be legally allowed to film public places. Europe’s legislative approach to this is wrong, I think, but I see the problem. Perhaps we need different societal norms.

I'm ok with it being legal to photograph, video, or record audio of public spaces without people . I'm pretty sure I'd prefer that photographing, filming, or audio recording me in an identifiable way was illegal without my explicit consent. I think public officials should be subject to recording while performing their duties . I think celebrities should not, unless they explicitly consent. Security cameras might need…

> I'm pretty sure I'd prefer that photographing, filming, or audio recording me in an identifiable way was illegal without my explicit consent.

You’re talking about banning street photography, a rich art form with a long history that is presently regarded as protected artistic expression.

Additionally, you can’t really reasonably hold any expectation of privacy when you are in a public place where anyone can see you.

If I can legally see you with my eyes, I should be able to legally photograph you. That’s my right.

Post reply on HN