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

191–200 of 205 posts

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#191

Post by __d »

sneak wrote: post #140
__d wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I used to find the argument that "if I can see you, I can photograph you" a lot more compelling. But now that a photograph is not a piece of paper, but rather both an image and its metadata, and trivially able to be, for instance, reverse image searched, leading to yet more metadata, etc, etc, I'm far less inclined to support it.

I'm coming to a view that there's a lot of difference between being seen (like, with eyes) and being photographed. It's certainly a shame that photography as an artform might be collateral damage here, but it doesn't change the situation that a photograph of me, in public, is now a gateway to a lot more than just an image.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#192

Post by cr4nberry »

jefftk wrote: post #183
cr4nberry wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pe…

> 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? Note that your phone also defaults to having its microphone on 24/7. The problem that this solves, for people that use it, is that it removes a lot of friction from computer interaction. "[Hey Siri / Ok Google / Alexa] set a timer for twenty minutes" takes…

> Note that your phone also defaults to having its microphone on 24/7

There's a difference between it being on vs having a task that's actively listening for trigger words.

Idk if Google/Apple put some kind of latent thing in their phone OS that's constantly listening for advertising or intelligence purposes. I'm assuming this is what you're talking about, since the microphone permission flag for applications on the phone OS can be easily disabled

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#193

Post by wcarron »

jspotanski wrote: post #120
wcarron wrote: post #66

We are rapidly approaching Fahrenheit 451. I was about to purchase a COROS fitness watch to track and aid my return to distance running. This article reminded me why I should not.

I have an old COROS and picked it precisely because it's not much more than damn good running watch with a battery that lasts for weeks. It's definitely not necessary for road running, but I needed it for unfamiliar trail running routes.

Yeah, that's what I wanted it for. I trail run 80+% of the time, and use my clock + google maps to figure out my avg min/mile on road workouts. In general, though, these fitness devices are onerous privacy invading devices. If I get one, I'd never wear it anytime other than when actively running.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#194

Post by jefftk »

cr4nberry wrote: post #192
jefftk wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Note that your phone also defaults to having its microphone on 24/7. The problem that this solves, for people that use it, is that it removes a lot of friction from computer interaction. "[Hey Siri / Ok Google / Alexa] set a timer for twenty minutes" takes…

> Note that your phone also defaults to having its microphone on 24/7 There's a difference between it being on vs having a task that's actively listening for trigger words. Idk if Google/Apple put some kind of latent thing in their phone OS that's constantly listening for advertising or intelligence purposes. I'm assuming this is what you're talking about, since the microphone permission flag for applications on the…

The reason I brought up Siri and Ok Google is that they're doing the same thing as Alexa with their always-on microphones: they're trying to detect a "wake word" ("Alexa", "Hey Siri", "Ok Google"), and once they do they take the recent audio and parse it for commands.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#195

Post by ALittleLight »

scott_w wrote: post #188
ALittleLight wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Since you're proposing society tortures and kills people without evidence that it'll make things better (and in spite of the evidence that it clearly doesn't), you're essentially saying "let's torture and kill people for fun." If you followed that logic out, what makes you better than a murderer or violent criminal?

Actually, given that the current model tortures and kills people to a greater extent - long prison terms in squalid conditions being worse and more dangerous than flogging, and there is no evidence that the current model is better than my system, you (or the status quo) are the one, by rejecting alternatives, proposing we torture and kill people without evidence. Following your logic what makes you better than a murderer or violent criminal?

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#196

Post by hedgehog »

neogodless wrote: post #122
hedgehog wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently switched from a mechanical watch to Apple Watch. Here's why: First, I wanted metrics on sleep and exercise to manage against (how am I allocating my time) and better understand how to optimize performance (e.g. even one beer has noticeable impact on rest). Second, I want an easier way to get a subset of notifications without picking up my phone. My hands are full with work or family most of the day so this…

Agree with all this except my Garmin Venu only needs charged after 8 days so it's not very annoying!

Battery life on the Apple Watch is pretty bad, for me the integration with my phone is worth it but it's a big compromise.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#197

Post by ClumsyPilot »

krapp wrote: post #116
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The solution here isn't more regulation, it's individual sovereignty over data you generate. It us government regulation that protects your sovereignty over your body or anything at all, including from the government itself

There's no such thing as government regulation that protects you from the government. That's like trusting sociopaths with following the honor system. They may be effective at pretending to follow the law, but if the government wants your body, your data, or anything at all, they'll just take it.

So if your individual sovereignity is violated, who takes action? A band of hired mercenaries? Bear traps?

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#198

Post by ericmay »

petesergeant wrote: post #146
ericmay wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just called house arrest. It’s not really prison or punishment if I’m comfortable at home.

> It’s not really prison or punishment if I’m comfortable at home Strong disagree. As many of us found out during Covid (depending on your country), being restricted from seeing loved ones and not being allowed to leave your house is absolutely punishment. House Arrest is much preferable to actual prison, but is still absolutely punishment. I went to a boarding school, and the strongest punishment you'd get before su…

Compared to a jail cell? I think your perspective is wildly off. COVID “lockdown” would be a paradise in comparison.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#199

Post by scott_w »

ALittleLight wrote: post #195
scott_w wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you're proposing society tortures and kills people without evidence that it'll make things better (and in spite of the evidence that it clearly doesn't), you're essentially saying "let's torture and kill people for fun." If you followed that logic out, what makes you better than a murderer or violent criminal?

Actually, given that the current model tortures and kills people to a greater extent - long prison terms in squalid conditions being worse and more dangerous than flogging, and there is no evidence that the current model is better than my system, you (or the status quo) are the one, by rejecting alternatives, proposing we torture and kill people without evidence. Following your logic what makes you better than a murd…

Point out where I said the current system works.

I think the system needs to change but that change needs to be with clear goals and with evidence that those goals can be, and are being, met. That’s why I’d propose looking at models that reduce reoffending and ensure the safety of inmates.

That’s what makes me better than a murderer or violent criminal.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#200

Post by Roark66 »

wink wrote: post #190
Roark66 wrote: post #121

People can enjoy the benefits of AI assistance without having their privacy violated. Running ML models on edge devices will become the norm whenever possible. Then we will allow such devices like Alexa to talk to web endpoints to get data, but not to submit any info the other way. I definitely can see a whole new niche of software called "privacy protection firewalls" that would sit on the network between "Alexa" an…

Sounds like a smart and easy solution, but how do you think this will have any remote chance of being doable? Your gadget communicates with the outside world, let's assume HTTP+TLS. Ok, so you need to MITM it. Does it speak plaintext? Ok, how do you know a=1234234&b=30487234807 does not say anything about your habits? Does it speak a binary protocol? Now you need to reverse that. No. Either I trust the device or I do…

Both issues you raise are already kind of solved(or very close to it) in the corporate security world. Also, I think people will lie and cheat when we make it easy for them to get away with it. Sending all data their way into their closed "black box systems" and trusting they don't use it for nefarious things makes is extremely easy for them to do whatever they want. Having devices run mostly at the edge communicating sporadically with the mothership or other web services it takes much more effort to conceal private information gathering and many companies will think it is not worth the risk of getting caught Also, no matter how cleverly they conceal it, someone will be able to reverse engineer it. When all we send is camera/microphone/sensor data this is 100% not possible.

About your specific points. Yes, MiTM would be required today although under a nicer name. In "corporate security" context this is often called "SSL inspection" and various hacks to end devices are required to make it work well. In future I hope no hacks will be required for home devices and enabling it will be a matter of a simple setting. Then a router/appliance could be used as SSL traffic decrypting proxy. One way it could be done, a customer could push a button on a device for it to download a self signed certificate from the router/scanning appliance. Then it would trust that cert in place of the target while the router would handle the ssl between itself and the remote service.

Then you raise a point of traffic scanning. It is not a trivial problem, but much of the technology already exists in various (again corpo) security scanning products. From signature based, through heuristics, to perhaps future AI based methods it is possible to achieve some level of protection from information leakage if you are able to scan all outgoing traffic and devices that communicate are generally built supporting well defined protocols. When AI runs at the edge at least we have a fighting chance to succeed most of the time. When it runs in the cloud and we just stream camera/microphone/sensor data there is no hope.

Post reply on HN