Saying that patterns are dangerous because they can reinforce stereotypes sounds a lot like you are saying the stereotypes are true.
A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)
31–40 of 339 posts
Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)
#32I wonder what they mean by this? > The camera can have different ways of seeing encoded in it, including kinds of gazes that enforce social agreements about what kinds of behavior and people are considered “normal” The phrase "kinds of gazes" strikes me as the sort of thing that's only going to make sense to people trained in a very particular and idiosyncratic flavor of ethical critique. What a normal person sees he…
> acting bizarre and dangerous The problem with surveillance like this becomes "who gets to decide what is bizarre and dangerous?"
Elected lawmakers and courts.
Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)
#33I still feel so conflicted on things like the Flock cameras. On one hand I understand that they have the capability of incredibly enhancing the ability for police departments to solve more crimes. Especially things related to vehicle theft, they could likely track down your stolen vehicle very quickly especially if they have a wide network of cameras.
However, my concern is always about the possibility for misuse. Even if I trust the current government, it doesn't mean I will trust a future one. What if they use the technology to track/monitor people like investigative journalists? We've already seen a recent state passing bills that would make it harder for investigative journalism to happen. So it's not even out of the realm of possibility for this technology to get used in ways that even would be deemed "legal" as they can simply expand the laws to use it unreasonably in the future.
There is also the other obvious concern which is surrounding things like data breaches or other unauthorized access issues. There have already been many people exposing some large security flaws in a lot of the devices currently out there.
Where I am stuck is how do we balance the huge set of benefits that can come from this kind of tech, with the tradeoffs? Ultimately this tech is unlikely to stop being implemented as governments and even most of the population is largely unbothered by mass surveillance. I almost don't even bother bringing up discussions on these topics with non-tech people as I have yet to find someone who seemed to care at all about this. If anything they are very in support of this technology being implemented as they seem unable to understand the tradeoffs due to it often requiring more technical knowledge. They just see all the positives it can give, and don't grasp the negatives.
Ultimately people usually desire safety, and these cameras definitely can give people more safety. Is it possible to balance safety with proper privacy safeguards?
Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)
#34> A probe packet contains the MAC address as well as the list of all the past Wi-fi networks that your device has tried to join before, which can reveal a lot about you! Generally, most modern devices send broadcast/wildcard probes precisely to avoid leaking the PNL. From what I know, directed probes are only sent for hidden APs.
And most modern devices randomize MAC addresses ("Wi-Fi addresses" in Apple-ese, for probably obvious reasons) between networks, and even between broadcasts/connections to the same network.
[flagged]
Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)
#35I wonder what they mean by this? > The camera can have different ways of seeing encoded in it, including kinds of gazes that enforce social agreements about what kinds of behavior and people are considered “normal” The phrase "kinds of gazes" strikes me as the sort of thing that's only going to make sense to people trained in a very particular and idiosyncratic flavor of ethical critique. What a normal person sees he…
What came to mind is a camera pointed at the cash register tells a very different story than the camera pointed at the ATM, or pointing from the ATM for that matter. Placement and the stories behind them offer interesting perspectives on what the observers are trying to catch or deter.
Do you mean trying to catch employee theft vs theft by externals? Why can't you write plainly instead of in riddles?
Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)
#36Lots of po-mo art-school language on this site about “encoding ways of seeing” and “gazes.” The content itself is somewhat interesting but imo plain language would be more accessible.
I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about statements like these which seem to assume the reader is incredibly uninformed and naive, to the point of condescension. "sends the information to a central storing place (called a database)" TIL what the word database means? "Amazon can use your purchases to know more about you using patterns." Is this news to someone? Condescending. "It might be connected to a network…
I think these criticisms are unjustified. The article could be aiming for less tech-savvy people. Remember the most tech-savvy people in the world are those who enabled the surveillance infrastructure in the first place. Also if you want any meaningful grassroot change, you need to appeal to the less knowledgeable cohorts. Politics is more or less "which informed people can convince the most uninformed ones."
> Is this news to someone?
Yes, many. xkcd 1053.
Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)
#37I still feel so conflicted on things like the Flock cameras. On one hand I understand that they have the capability of incredibly enhancing the ability for police departments to solve more crimes. Especially things related to vehicle theft, they could likely track down your stolen vehicle very quickly especially if they have a wide network of cameras. However, my concern is always about the possibility for misuse. Ev…
What's that quote about essential Liberty and temporary Safety again...
Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)
#38 Flat black circles on top of traffic signal control boxes, which are large, gray or painted metal boxes, typically found at street corners.
The Acyclica device casts a fake Wi-Fi network and tracks phones that try to join the network in passing cars. Since each phone has a unique identifier …, different Acyclica installations can track your personal location as you pass them in the city.
Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)
#39I wonder what they mean by this? > The camera can have different ways of seeing encoded in it, including kinds of gazes that enforce social agreements about what kinds of behavior and people are considered “normal” The phrase "kinds of gazes" strikes me as the sort of thing that's only going to make sense to people trained in a very particular and idiosyncratic flavor of ethical critique. What a normal person sees he…
Gaze language needed to be fleshed out perhaps
Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)
#40I still feel so conflicted on things like the Flock cameras. On one hand I understand that they have the capability of incredibly enhancing the ability for police departments to solve more crimes. Especially things related to vehicle theft, they could likely track down your stolen vehicle very quickly especially if they have a wide network of cameras. However, my concern is always about the possibility for misuse. Ev…
On one hand I understand that they have the capability of incredibly enhancing the ability for police departments to solve more crimes.
Do they?
There are millions of these cameras all around the country, yet when pressed about their value, Flock and cops can only point to one or two crimes prevented/solved at a time. And they're usually things like "caught a burglar after the fact," or "stopped someone from dumpster diving."
Get back to me when they find Samantha Guthrie.