The trade-off between the convenience of having an always-on camera and living in a society in which everyone has an always-on cameras seems like a no-brainer to me.
There's even a Black Mirror episode like that - "The Entire History of You".
I'm pretty sure humanity is already past the point where this question is timely. We have many cameras watching us all day long and ten years from now there will be even more. For what it's worth, maybe this will finally teach people to thing before they act.
Really? Do you have cameras looking at you all day at work? Or at home, while interacting with your family? I hope not. I also hope that you'd object to any attempts to put such a device.
It's true that society by and large accepts CCTV cameras in public places. But that's not the same as equipping everyone with an always-on camera and having every human interaction recorded. That's just dystopian.
> For what it's worth, maybe this will finally teach people to thing before they act.
That's the oldest argument in the book. And sure, it's true. If you point a camera at people, they will behave "better". But that's insane, that's like saying that since children are most likely to be abused at home, then we should outlaw parenting, and have the state raise all kids using only state-certified™ personnel. Sure, that might work, but it kinda seems like we're losing something important along the way, no?
Having everyone "act better" is a good cause. But surveillance comes at a huge social cost, not to mention the potential for abuse by the watchers or those who decide what "better" is. Your "act better" might be a long way off the government's idea of how it would like citizens to behave.
Anyone who works in an office complex does. Anyone who works in a retail store does. Bus drivers have cameras recording the entire time the bus engine is on.
Aside from a farmer in a field, I'm hard pressed to think of a job that doesn't take place under a security camera. Taxi Driver, delivery agents, street food vendors, and people who work at home remotely.
Okay, this was a generalization and exaggeration on my part (to a certain extent that is), but at the same time - how many cameras (notebook, smartphone etc) do you have at home at any give time? At the office? Security cameras are everywhere, any modern business center have dozens of them on each floor.
>That's just dystopian.
Sounds dystopian. And you don't need to equip everyone with them. Police, CCTV, transport (busses, taxis etc) will cover most of it. http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-42248056/in-your... - this will be everywhere soon enough.
>that's like saying that since children are most likely to be abused at home, then we should outlaw parenting, and have the state raise all kids using only state-certified™ personnel.
Two differenct things here. If we are to compare those to IT support - parenting is the last line of support (in fact parents are the developers in this case). But you also need to make sure that kids who happen to be born into a bad family\neighbourhood also behave. Yes, you shouldn't just put a collar on them, but instead try to help them somehow - that's the 2nd line of support. 1st line of support is the CCTV's AI that will monitor them to keep things under control.
In other words - I'm not trying to say that one should be replaced by the other.
>potential for abuse
This risk in always out there. Gun control, police, drug stores you name it.
Besides the fact this statement is inaccurate (there are not infact security cameras everywhere, footage is not centralized and analyized by huge powerful parties), It in no way somehow justifies the situation as it stands, or will stand if these become popular.
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-42248056/in-your...
You just wait.
>there are not infact security cameras everywhere
Well, depending on where you live of course. You won't find a single one in Somali most likely.
Anyway, as I've already said - I'm not trying to justify anything.
I think it'll rather lead to a homogenization of behavior. A dystopia I don't want to live in.
So yes, I would be fine with that.
I agree that everything being recorded all the time is somewhat inevitable considering the way things are going. While this does make the situation symmetric to some extent as far as the capacity to record interesting things goes. However, I believe that in the foreseeable future the negatives outweigh the positives.
You might be able to get the clerk at the DMV to be nicer if they're on camera but your ability to influence society with the ability to record video doesn't extend much beyond there.
Only the incumbents (tech giants and the government) have the ability to store and mine this sort of data for interesting things that are only interesting in retrospect. You do not have access to a big chunk of the data set. Your bank, insurance company and government do. They can mine that data to punish you or others for whatever behavior they deem bad and to extract compliance to their whims. You, neither as a individual nor as part of a group do not have the capacity to do the same analysis, the means to use what you learn to manipulate individuals. Even if you did you don't have access to a large enough chunk of the data set.
Until the power to access and draw meaning from this sort of data is in everyone's hands the situation is not symmetric. I hope you and those who agree with you reconsider your opinions.
Not living in the UK doesn't change much, it goes from "in public I'm always possibly on camera" to "in public I'm always possibly on camera" everywhere, not just the Uk.
My ability to influence society with a camera is far beyond "the DMV clerk being nicer". It's being able to hold the cop who pulls me over accountable. Being able to get video of the van that hit a parked car and sped off. Being able to submit proof that the person I saw trying to open the doors on a bunch of parked cars was actually trying to do that. The second two are real examples that have happened to me within the last 6 months, the first one is a real example that you can easily see the utility of via verifiable stories on the internet.
And even if you think my ability to influence society is minimal with it, that's fine, ability to influence society wasn't why people above were asking for it.
For now. The UK wasn't always covered in surveillance either.
If the camera had a light indicating when it was actually recording, that seems better. There are probably many small changes to make such cameras more acceptable.
Ever noticed people have covered their laptop cameras even though they have a light to indicate if it’s on?
How do you do that to someone else’s camera that has been remote activated with the light disabled?
