On 9/21/16 10:59 AM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>> That's called "Little Brother"; we (for various forms of "we") have talked
>> about it a lot.
> Heh. Kinda funny. I called it "Little Sister" when I mentioned it to my
> buddy.

I like that.  Perhaps the well-designed incarnation should be "Little Sister" 
to be more opposite and less threatening than "Big

> Yeah, those are good points you make. A voting system that could
> downvote/purge irrelevant/private clips would be good. It should be motion
> captured, to preserve storage/bandwidth.
> Of course you're right that there are implications for misuse. I'm not
> sure thats a deal-breaker for me, exactly, criminal types will use their
> own tech to case a joint anyhow. Sure, maybe it lowers the bar, but there
> seem to be adequate payoffs.
> My main concern is the privacy implications, and the social implications,
> of people who get accustomed to always being on cam. I see it evolving to
> a type of super-amped up example of the Japanese concepts of honne (true
> sound)/ tatemae (facade). Honne being "how one truly is" and tatemae "how
> one presents themself in society." All cultures have such concepts, but
> for the Japanese, they were, and are, very deeply ingrained and felt,
> including nuance for different levels, and things one never says even to
> their closest associates.

In the US, we've essentially decided that a wide range of things that used to 
be private are more or less fine to be public. 
Generally, at least in certain areas, it isn't a negative and can even be 
positive in some ways sometimes.  The fact that some laws
are changing and the broader public is becoming more sophisticated helps a lot. 
 A few obvious examples: sexuality (now legal), soft
drugs (more legal), not being religious, 50 Shades et al, porn, nudity, sex 
tapes.  All of those required strict privacy and
partitioning in the past.

> I don't know that those are trades I'm willing to make.
> The black bloc tactic of smashing cameras isn't bad, except like most of
> their tactics, it just won't scale. It's great for young adults with
> plenty of piss and vinegar in their veins, but its not going to attract
> the masses. I'm not worried about attracting the anarchist kids willing to
> get facial ink to make sure they can't get a proper job and "sell out" or
> willing to do a stint in the clink. They're going to be alright.
> I'm more concerned with getting to the critical mass of mainstream folks.
> Your points about providing a free type of security monitoring solution
> for their homes might help attract them, with the side-benefits being that
> it can undermine a state monopoly on surveillance.
> Still.. the social costs scare me. But those costs may very well get paid
> whether an open system exists, or not.


Reply via email to