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 Brother". > > 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. > > sdw