On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:24:30 -0400, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm generally against electronic surveillance in public places on
> principal. Partly because I know that the companies selling cameras to
> governments are working on / with both facial and "behavioral"
> recognition software...
Is it suprusing that these companies would work on products that are
related? To me this is like saying a garden supply store is suspect
for selling dirt _and_ selling tools.
> I know someone personally who works for a
> company that's working on the software... So at some point you could
> theoretically be arrested for picking your nose in a suspicious way.
If picking your nose is against the law, then yes, you could be
arrested. If you are commiting a crime, you are commiting a crime. It
doesn't matter if a cop sees you or a machine. Others have said this
in the thread, but if you are out driving your car I don't think you
should have the same level of expectation of privacy as you would in
your house.
> Which _is_ the thought police from Blair's 1984 no matter how much the
> people working on it (or trying to acquire it) want to rationalize it
> away. I do object to cameras where I wouldn't object to a police
> officer because they're impersonal.
Of course some could say the opposite. At least in theory a camera
will not have any predjudices.
> The rule is that when you give
> human beings an impersonal device they do bad things with it. When you
> give them TV they stop talking to each other. When you give them
> microwave ovens they stop eating together. When you give them email
> they produce spam. When you give them cameras with behavioral
> recognition software they'll do bad things with that also.
Machines lead to machine-type feelings. Well, interesting idea, but
not much we can do about that unless you want to turn back the clock.
;)
-Ray
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
