The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’ • Hacker News Board

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#171

Post by cr4nberry » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 8:48 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?

Because then it normalizes that degree of privacy invasion on a societal level. It makes it more expensive for people to say 'no' to it (because insurance companies profit from it and will nudge it)

You might see short term benefit for yourself, but others could end up getting screwed by insurance companies because their lifestyle doesn't qualify as "healthy". Not only this, but lifestyle data could be used to profile potential customers and either deny them coverage or jack up their rates

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#172

Post by cr4nberry » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 9:09 AM UTC

frou_dh wrote: post #157

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.

> 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.

I mean, you could just do the exact same thing with your computer, or your phone? That's what I do when I cook

Where's the pure utility? Not having to walk over to your computer or phone?

> 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.

It isn't your problem. I never said it was. My problem is that the "utility" from wearables is complete and utter BS, and that what little value they add comes nowhere close to justifying the cost or invasion of privacy

But I guess if the niche uses are appealing enough to you, then by all means indulge ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#173

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 9:25 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…

"Conversatations are processd locally and scanned for restricted subjects with advanced AI."

That includes any conversations with lawyers.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#174

Post by cr4nberry » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 9:27 AM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #97

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…

> 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).

> That seems kind of extreme. You don't like it, just don't buy it?

Me not buying one is pretty much a given here. That wasn't my argument

> and it doesn't -- everyone around me has one, it's not noteworthy to have one strapped to your wrist

But in that kind of situation, wouldn't not having one indicate a lack of status?

If you're in an Apple family or work with people who are all die hard Apple fans (to the point where everyone has an Apple Watch), not having one would count as a lack of status

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#175

Post by qikInNdOutReply » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 9:39 AM UTC

jeffbr13 wrote: post #162

swampthinker wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Forgot about that GPU cluster you spun up last month and built up an astronomical AWS bill? Don’t worry, you won’t have to sell a kidney, stay at Amazon Workhouse Services until you've cleared your debt!

Part of the Blockchaingang..

Cold: the air and water flowing.

Hard: the land we call our home.

Push to keep the corpo growing,

Feel the weight of what we owe.

This: the song of sons and daughters,

Hide the heart of who we are.

Making code to build our future,

Strong, united, working till we fall.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#176

Post by cr4nberry » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 9:40 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.

> 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 can't prove this, but I'm convinced that there's a bunch of people in this culture who want surveillance and invasion of privacy. There's too many instances of people buying into BS like internet connected wearables or Alexa. All of the reasons people give for buying these products is marginal. What problem does Alexa solve that your phone or computer can't? And why is it necessary to give a device the privilege to have a microphone on 24/7 to solve it?

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#177

Post by lotsofpulp » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 9:42 AM UTC

cr4nberry wrote: post #171

lotsofpulp wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Because then it normalizes that degree of privacy invasion on a societal level. It makes it more expensive for people to say 'no' to it (because insurance companies profit from it and will nudge it) You might see short term benefit for yourself, but others could end up getting screwed by insurance companies because their lifestyle doesn't qualify as "healthy". Not only this, but lifestyle data could be used to profil…

>It makes it more expensive for people to say 'no' to it

It makes it cheaper for those who exercise and eat healthy. We use individuals' history of repaying debts to price their loans, we use individuals' history of driving and location of driving to price their auto insurance premiums. We use their history in school and work to price their work product.

Where is the line for pricing someone's risk based on individual factors vs pricing based on the collective risk?

>Not only this, but lifestyle data could be used to profile potential customers and either deny them coverage or jack up their rates

Per Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies in the US cannot deny coverage and premiums can only be priced using the 5 criteria listed here:

https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#178

Post by frou_dh » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 9:53 AM UTC

cr4nberry wrote: post #172

frou_dh wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. I mean, you could just do the exact same thing with your computer, or your phone? That's what I do when I cook Where's the pure utility? Not having to walk over to your computer or phone? > You seem to have ma…

What is niche? Any application cr4nberry hasn't heard of?

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#179

Post by Fricken » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 10:03 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™

Maybe instead of wasting energy to mine crypto, one could waste human potential instead.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#180

Post by jsmith99 » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 10:03 AM UTC

smegger001 wrote: post #99

BoorishBears wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

if the cost to imprison someone is far larger than damages done maybe it would be cheaper for the tax payer to just make the victim whole and give the criminal a lesser sentence.

The damage done is far greater than the gain to the thief.