Re: Little Brother, Re: Switching gears
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
Re: Little Brother, Re: Switching gears
On 09/21/2016 10:30 AM, Stephen D. Williams wrote: > That's called "Little Brother"; we (for various forms of "we") have > talked about it a lot. The difference now is that it is doable in a > wide range of circumstances due to bandwidth, storage, compression, > cameras, and AI filtering, plus possible IoT, etc. integration. For a > completely neutral example of real reality shows: http://explore.org/ > But beware, you may become hooked. > > I think it could be good, especially in certain areas. You could have > graduations of privacy where when enough people have declared something > as needing public attention, it is opened to all, replicated, etc. The > flip side is that if something should be private and the only interest > is prurient or bullying, then enough veto votes should be able to shut > it down and excise the memory of something. Like Google blurring faces > in Street View. Voting on the right/wrong side of history perhaps > affects your karma score, weighting future votes, modulo fog of war > discount. Conversely, at certain types of events, like a concert or > parade, marathons, etc. the default could be public as people could then > have memories, virtual selfies, etc. > > Legally, in the US at least, whenever you are viewable from publicly > accessible land, it is legal to photograph or video you. (But not > always to capture audio...) There are few restrictions, some quirky: > You can be photographed through your house window, but not by a zoom > lens. (I.e. only by a lens with a view similar to your eyesight.) > > The problems in managing this securely, fairly, and while supporting > valid societal interests without trampling anyone are very similar to > the problems in creating a secure distributed communication overlay > network without enabling unfettered terrorist use. COPS get to define what a 'terrorist' means under their COPNATION laws. Why are you hanging around this list? You just tipped your hand to the fact you're a friend of the state this list is intended, in many ways, to undermine. I'm a terrorist, motherfucker. Try to fetter me. We're all terrorists here and you want to 'fetter' us with your boilerplate bullshit till our eyes glaze over and the neurolinguistic 'load' of garbagespeak sinks in. Right? Ps. You know much too much about the vagaries of photographic privacy laws. Private Dick, or a wannabe. Rr < > > > On 9/21/16 10:01 AM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: >> I'd like to bounce an idea around. At the outset, I'm going to say that I >> don't really like the idea. Like getting a root canal, I'd rather not have >> a some guy drilling around in my jaw, but what can you do? >> >> Some years back, maybe 8 years ago now, prior to the Snowden revelations, >> a Kiwi buddy and I were discussing the arising surveillance state. >> >> I ventured the idea that the only way to combat it, is for citizens to put >> web cams in their windows, in their cars, have body cams.. whatever.. and >> have a distributed system where we can live stream that stuff up. Open >> source surveillance, if you will. >> >> The idea scared the hell out of him, and rightly so. My take on >> surveillance tech is that it is like nukes. The only viable strategy is >> deterrence. The genie is out of the bottle, the tech isn't going anywhere, >> and so if we're going to preserve freedom, the technology needs to be >> under our control. >> >> Open source surveillance is a monster, but its a monster that would bite >> police and agents of the state as easily as us. Rather than the >> government/media being able to selectively pick-and-choose which camera >> angles, and which clips to release, we'd have to ability to check, and >> disprove. >> >> I don't like what it means, in terms of enabling stalkers, but perhaps >> that is mitigated by the ability to catch those fucks on camera? >> >> I'd love to hear reactions and thoughts on this. It's not something you're >> going to catch me truly arguing for, its really more of a devil's advocate >> type thing.. like I say, I just see it mostly as a fucked strategy for >> dealing with a fucked situation. > > sdw >
Re: Little Brother, Re: Switching gears
> 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. 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. 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.
