The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’ • Hacker News Board

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#151

Post by ls15 » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 5:10 AM UTC

pannSun wrote: post #102

rootusrootus wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> whenever I see someone wearing one it just pisses me off That seems kind of extreme. You don't like it, just don't buy it? Personally, I like my Apple Watch, it's pretty handy. I couldn't care less about any sort of 'status' it projects (and it doesn't -- everyone around me has one, it's not noteworthy to have one strapped to your wrist).

> You don't like it, just don't buy it? The remainder of his post explains why such an individual solution isn't enough: it doesn't stop society as a whole slipping further into total surveillance, until eventually it swallows you as well. Either compelled by law, or non-negotiable contract, or by a large fraction of your friends owning surveillance devices, catching you in their crossfire.

I agree. I don't have a Facebook account, yet people are telling me that surveillance is fine, because we give away our data on Facebook anyway.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#152

Post by alasdair_ » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 5:16 AM UTC

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

This leads to the most violent and dangerous prisoners being punished the least, and the least violent punished the most. This seems completely backwards.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#153

Post by sschueller » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 5:17 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #68

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...

I am really starting to question if the movie robotcop isn't a documentary. /s

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#154

Post by jkestner » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 5:34 AM UTC

tetromino_ wrote: post #55

kgwxd wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The camera was there but the crime still happened so it didn’t make anything safer when it was most dangerous. Was the dude ID’d and arrested?

As far as I know, the dude has not been arrested. Thanks to the video though, the probability of the burglar eventually being arrested is at least slightly higher than zero.

Buying lottery tickets instead of a camera also has a slightly higher than zero probability of a positive outcome.

I wouldn’t doubt that a webcam (real or dummy) deters crime. I’ve looked hard for statistics on arrest rates for home property theft with security cameras, but propaganda/fearmongering from camera companies clogs up my search. Maybe you’ll have better luck.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#155

Post by nonch0n » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 5:38 AM UTC

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…

I'd much rather go to the Hoosegow than the Clink

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#156

Post by jkestner » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 5:44 AM UTC

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.

As a nerd, I recognize the statistic unlikelihood of a camera making a difference in my security, so it’s easy to choose just not to get cameras.

“I watch nothing happen over and over again….The worry begets more worry, all because the camera offered only a sliver of a view of the whole—one meant to spin doubt into tizzy. It’s better to see nothing if you can’t see everything.” https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/10/home-...

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#157

Post by frou_dh » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 5:54 AM UTC

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…

I cook a lot and use a watch app called MultiTimer every day for virtually everything I cook. Got detailed overlapping timers configured for all my recipes. That's pure utility, no status signalling involved.

You seem to have made up your mind that it's a fixed-function non-programmable computer and got angry about that, but I don't see how that's my problem.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#158

Post by mellavora » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 7:08 AM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #137

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?

simple answer: Because the path to direct monetization leads to laws forcing other people to give away their privacy.

more complex answer: why does everything need to be monetized, or monetizable? How does this shape society, and is this the society we want?

See today's discussion on luxury surveillance https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33256724

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#159

Post by bryanrasmussen » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 7:13 AM UTC

swampthinker wrote: post #143

aj7 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

$5000 in AWS credits if you spend a month in Amazon Prime Prison™

Go to Amazon Prime Prison Free for 30 days!

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#160

Post by lazyasciiart » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 7:18 AM UTC

ALittleLight wrote: post #114

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is there any evidence to backup the approached you propose as effective, efficient, or desirable in any way? Especially since you seem to advocate flogging, which is a form of torture. And advocate executions, which grants the government ultinate tyranical power over a citizen. And when a mistake is made, and the innocent is executed, this mistake can never be corrected. Such mistakes are quite conmon, as apparently…

I don't believe our current system (in the US) is based on evidence, so I see no reason to limit alternatives to being backed by evidence. I've never had the opportunity to run my own justice system, so no, I can't say how well it works. I think corporal punishment is vastly more humane and prefer it largely for humanitarian reasons. If we were torturing prisoners, and I proposed we stopped, would you ask for the evi…

> If we were torturing prisoners, and I proposed we stopped, would you ask for the evidence to back up the idea that cutting out torture was a good idea?

We are torturing prisoners in several ways, from solitary confinement to physical deprivation. People do routinely propose that we stop, and they do get asked for evidence that their proposal would be better. Your idea is one that we have evidence against because, as you mention, it has a long history. (And that is not actually evidence that it works: otherwise we'd just use witchcraft.)