Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 76 posts

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#51

Post by groundzeros2015 »

newspaper1 wrote: post #23
paytonjjones wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everyone wants a high trust society but you can't just remove all guardrails and expect that to be the result. The causality goes the other way.

I would absolutely support the surveillance of CEOs and board members. They have demonstrated themselves, as a class, to not be trustworthy. I think as a society, we should be reviewing Alex Karp's decision making for instance.

This is not a serious comment. CEOs are some of the most accountable and watched people in society. Low level employees (imagine a random adult) is not highly capable or accountable and needs guidance.

Can you acknowledge this gap in your analysis?

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#52

Post by bee_rider »

Aurornis wrote: post #28

I think this is getting upvoted because the headline is about surveillance with a LOTR reference. The subject is about surveillance cameras that people put in their own homes. I see all of these comments about “the panopticon” or surveilling board members and CEOs from people who have apparently not realized this is about people’s private homes. The authors use prose and structure to look like a scientific study, but…

It’s your house, so fine I guess. How do you support that decision? A little “terms-and-conditions for entering,” posted on the doors, or something?

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#53

Post by lotsofpulp »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #13
gsibble wrote: post #7

Should domestic workers not be surveilled while doing their job? I get the threat of pervasive AI but this hardly seems like it.

Somehow we've made it the vast majority of human history without it. Or at least surveillance that is generally not great. I would wager real money that there is going to be psychological effects of 100% accurate at all times complete surveillance of a person everywhere outside of their own homes (for now, I'm sure the time is coming for that as well)

>Somehow we've made it the vast majority of human history without it.

That isn’t a high bar. It’s only recently that the greater accessibility of cameras and recording devices that we get insight into just how much abuse there is, such as that experienced by women or by police towards minorities.

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#54

Post by lotsofpulp »

antonvs wrote: post #50
b112 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are hundreds of millions of CEOs, and board members. Every single company in the West has a CEO and a board. I've heard of some bad behaviour. I haven't heard of millions of cases of bad behaviour. Do you have numbers to back up your assertions?

Collectively, in the US at least, decisions collectively made by boards have led to greatly increased inequality. For example, at every AI company right now, an explicit goal it to make profit by replacing or reducing the need for human staff. There tends to be extremely little attention paid to the social ramifications of this: like every SV business before them, the goal is to "disrupt" and leave the consequences f…

>For example, at every AI company right now, an explicit goal it to make profit by replacing or reducing the need for human staff.

Almost everyone has an explicit goal of spending less money for equivalent goods and services. People prefer to stores that prioritize lowering prices over paying for more staff.

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#55

Post by reliabilityguy »

roughly wrote: post #48
reliabilityguy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> imposing what’s effectively a panopticon state on those with less power than us I would say that cameras are protecting the honest worker as much as they help the homeowner. > The answer to this is if you don’t trust your domestic worker to not steal from you, either hire one you do or go do your own damn domestic work Why only these two choices? The worker is free to not take the work at a place with cameras. No o…

> I would say that cameras are protecting the honest worker as much as they help the homeowner. The cameras are a means of rigidly enforcing the rules, to a degree that traffic on the way back from lunch becomes something that threatens one’s employment. You and I bend the rules a thousand times a day in ways big and small because the world does not accommodate rigid rules and that’s fine; the workers under panoptico…

This is extremely once-sided view. Cameras protect employees from unfounded accusations.

Cameras provide alibi to those who may be suspects, saving time and money.

And so on.

You are only seeing the negative side of cameras, but there are positives as well.

> Their landlord forces them. A tight labor market forces them. Time pressure forces them. Bills force them. Hunger forces them. Our entire system forces them.

Nope, they are free to walk away, rent without cameras, etc, etc.

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#56

Post by nkrisc »

reliabilityguy wrote: post #44
roughly wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trust involves risk - someone has to be willing to risk having their trust violated. The problem in modern western society is that we’ve decided we’re unwilling to take that risk, and therefore we’ve begun imposing what’s effectively a panopticon state on those with less power than us, with the consequence that the kinds of things we with power get away with fine - driving over the speed limit, being a couple minutes…

> imposing what’s effectively a panopticon state on those with less power than us I would say that cameras are protecting the honest worker as much as they help the homeowner. > The answer to this is if you don’t trust your domestic worker to not steal from you, either hire one you do or go do your own damn domestic work Why only these two choices? The worker is free to not take the work at a place with cameras. No o…

Until everywhere has cameras. It eventually becomes a false choice.

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#57

Post by roughly »

reliabilityguy wrote: post #55
roughly wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would say that cameras are protecting the honest worker as much as they help the homeowner. The cameras are a means of rigidly enforcing the rules, to a degree that traffic on the way back from lunch becomes something that threatens one’s employment. You and I bend the rules a thousand times a day in ways big and small because the world does not accommodate rigid rules and that’s fine; the workers under panoptico…

This is extremely once-sided view. Cameras protect employees from unfounded accusations. Cameras provide alibi to those who may be suspects, saving time and money. And so on. You are only seeing the negative side of cameras, but there are positives as well. > Their landlord forces them. A tight labor market forces them. Time pressure forces them. Bills force them. Hunger forces them. Our entire system forces them. No…

They are indeed free to go live under a bridge, until the police tell them to move on.

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#58

Post by rbk1234 »

HPsquared wrote: post #31
feanaro wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surveillance is decidedly and completely unlike locks.

Surveillance can remove the need for locks.

I'd prefer locks, they work passively and do not reduce privacy or create endless busywork.

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#59

Post by reliabilityguy »

roughly wrote: post #57
reliabilityguy wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is extremely once-sided view. Cameras protect employees from unfounded accusations. Cameras provide alibi to those who may be suspects, saving time and money. And so on. You are only seeing the negative side of cameras, but there are positives as well. > Their landlord forces them. A tight labor market forces them. Time pressure forces them. Bills force them. Hunger forces them. Our entire system forces them. No…

They are indeed free to go live under a bridge, until the police tell them to move on.

There are a lot of choices between “under the bridge” and “cameras are evil”.

Re: A sociotechnical threat model for AI-driven smart home devices

#60

Post by reliabilityguy »

nkrisc wrote: post #56
reliabilityguy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> imposing what’s effectively a panopticon state on those with less power than us I would say that cameras are protecting the honest worker as much as they help the homeowner. > The answer to this is if you don’t trust your domestic worker to not steal from you, either hire one you do or go do your own damn domestic work Why only these two choices? The worker is free to not take the work at a place with cameras. No o…

Until everywhere has cameras. It eventually becomes a false choice.

in this case you can always start a business without cameras and sell it as a feature of your workspace. If workers really want no cameras, they will come.
Post reply on HN