221–230 of 283 posts
Look how well it worked for cops! I'm not suggesting we get rid of their bodycams, but it's easily gamed. It's one thing to be rich and enjoy the luxuries afforded by that, but to buy dominance over the very lives of others is when the angry mob retaliation is entirely justifiable.
They turn them off all the time or the footage gets deleted
I think the really dangerous part here is not just “surveillance bad”. It is that AI removes the labour cost that used to limit surveillance. CCTV was already a problem, but someone still had to watch it, search it, interpret it, escalate it. AI changes that. It makes surveillance searchable, scalable and administratively useful. The shift is from “you may be observed” to “your behaviour can be continuously machine-i…
This is not even a given. A panopticon tends to produce risk-aversion and metastasize Goodhart's Law. People do what they think they're expected to do and interpret vague rules in the most conservative way even if it's absurd/inefficient/immoral, or follow poorly drafted rules to the letter. There is a reason "work to rule" is a manner of labor strike.
> I have been trying to understand this fetish for controlling people through coercion that seems so prevalent in certain new modern business contexts, like amazon warehouse workers and delivery employees.
This tends to happen in rote unskilled jobs because they have to process however many packages per unit time and if workers spend 90% of each hour processing packages instead of 99.9% then they need 11 workers instead of 10. Even there it often doesn't work; results in high turnover or having to pay more to retain workers.
For the vast majority of jobs it doesn't even come close to working because the job isn't simplistic and uniform enough to have everything mapped out in advance. But some people have enough hubris to think they can run the bottom from the top.
Jan 2010: Jeffrey, Epstein - Chief Financial Officer - ORACLE USA, Inc https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/ConvertT... Brought to you by Corporation Service Company, the trusted service partner of deep state.
Not the same person, dumbass.
The current experiment in São Paulo, 8k+ cameras were added to the city with the same justification: security.
But, at least for smartphones robberies, the results are not obvious: on an average of 24 smartphones stolen every hour[1] in one neighborhood (Pinheiros is a big "tech" area).
I just want to point this out because this premise of more recording = more security = more behavior is not necessarily true.
[1] https://g1.globo.com/sp/sao-paulo/noticia/2026/05/21/cameras...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Jeff will be president within 20 years imo. It could be worse, it could be Musk. Having seen what Americans will vote for, either option is possible.
every time this comes up I feel it's worth reminding people that this already happened before in American history - 1890's and the robber baron industrialists that monopolized everything.
Time for some reading.
We should 100% surveil, track, arrest and prosecute those people. Painting everyone with the same brush is never correct.
Find the problem people and deal with them. Hopefully in a way that teaches them not to be problem people. And failing that lock them up so we don’t have to deal with their bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"In the U.S., the number of civilians whom police have killed annually has only increased each year since the widespread adoption of body camera equipment," That is a near textbook case of abusing statistics. Those things are completely independent variables. Perhaps "civilians" (as opposed to what, military?) killed by police increased because crime increased. Or population increased. Or laws changed. Or bullets cha…
It's important to keep in mind which bodycam vids make it to YouTube and which don't. You are seeing videos selected for a purpose.
Some less than positive-for-police videos I've seen-
- a weak police officer doesn't take control of the situation and the officer standing behind the first one is shot and killed
- an officer, while chasing a suspect, tazes him as he exits the median grassy area and enters a lane of traffic. The suspect was killed by traffic.
- a forfeiture case where someone's life savings (cash) were confiscated without due process during a traffic stop
I think the really dangerous part here is not just “surveillance bad”. It is that AI removes the labour cost that used to limit surveillance. CCTV was already a problem, but someone still had to watch it, search it, interpret it, escalate it. AI changes that. It makes surveillance searchable, scalable and administratively useful. The shift is from “you may be observed” to “your behaviour can be continuously machine-i…
If every violation gets captured hopefully we can have law enforcement and judges that can use their discretion to make sure the "spirit of the law" is what actually results in punishment. Or we fire 80% of them if an AI can outperform them. By spirit of the law I mean: rolling a stop sign at 1am on a flat country road is not the same as rolling a stop sign in a busy parking lot.
1. No one is foregoing the revenue from even minor infractions.
2. There won’t be a human in the loop. You thought Judge Judy was bad? Try Judge AImy.
How do I know this? Having copped three speeding fines last year via speed cameras, two of which were for driving 43km/h in a 40 zone. One of which I disputed with dash-cam footage showing it was a brief overtaking acceleration when a truck came to a stop in an intersection. Outcome? “No. Speed camera never lies. But feel free to waste more time and money getting this before a human.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uuuugh. The AI smell is strong on this comment. Please use AI for loads of things, but also pretty-please keep it out of inter-human discussions.
This does not read as AI to me at all