6 ms·

We really need these things to be Closed Circuit by law. Want the data? Get a warrant and seize the device physically. Centralized databases of surveillance i

We really need these things to be Closed Circuit by law. Want the data? Get a warrant and seize the device physically. Centralized databases of surveillance information needs to be outlawed criminally.

dahfizz 6y ago
Isn't the whole reason people buy those is because they back up to the cloud and they can view the feed from anywhere? CC security cameras are nothing new
manigandham 6y ago
You can buy closed circuit cameras for the past 40 years. People buy Ring to avoid the in-home infrastructure.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Hence, by law. A legal mandate avoids the race-to-the-bottom trend.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    What race to the bottom? It’s a choice. People like having choices.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      When "choice" effectively limits societal options or generates massive externalities and/or long-term unpredictable impacts, all parties upon whom the "choice" impacts are not given voice, or choice. Often commonweal is a better guiding light than "choice". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom Sophie Zawistowska was offered a choice. Did her utility benefit by it? https://youtube.com/watch?v=DZ9bht5H2p4 https://youtube.com/watch?v=DZ9bht5H2p4
      - manigandham 6y ago
        It's the user's choice to use a cloud-hosted security system. They can weigh the trade-offs and risks for themselves, same as with any other system. Whether that data is accessible by law enforcement is a completely separate issue. A proper solution would be limiting this access and requiring consent and transparency, not removing infrastructure options because you think you know better than everyone else about what's best for them.
        dredmorbius 6y ago
        The issue, by virtue of legally allowed warrantless access, is inextricably conjoined, and the impacts of that choice accrue to not only the decisionmaker, but to countless others. Your premises are false. Your proposed (and grossly insufficient) remedy is one form of legal mandate. I'd strongly commend Shoshana Zuboff, Hanna Arendt, and Paul Baran, amongst numerous others: "On the Engineer's Responsibility in Protecting Privacy", Paul Baran, 1968: https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P3829.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P3829.html Another view was expressed by AI pioneer and Nobel Laureate (economics) Herbert Simon: "The privacy issue has been raised most insistently with respect to the creation and maintenance of longitudinal data files that assemble information about persons from a multitude of sources. Files of this kind would be highly valueable for many kinds of economic and social research, but they are bought at too high a price if they endanger human freedom or seriously enhance the opportunities of blackmailers. While such dangers should not be ignored, it should be noted that the lack of comprehensive data files has never been the limiting barrier to the suppression of human freedom. The Watergate criminals made extensive, if unskillful, use of electronics, but no computer played a role in their conspiracy. The Nazis operated with horrifying effectiveness and thoroughness without the benefits of any kind of mechanized data processing." https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a9e7/33e25ee8f67d5e670b3b7dc4b8c3e00849ae.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a9e7/33e25ee8f67d5e670b3b7d... There is, of course, one slight problem with Simon's argument: The Nazis did make heavy use of mechanised data processing, provided and supported by IBM. Edwin Black documents this meticulously in his book IBM and the Holocaust: https://ibmandtheholocaust.com https://ibmandtheholocaust.com
        6y ago
easterncalculus 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine It would go against this and lots of legal precedent supporting it, so definitely an uphill battle.
- mtgx 6y ago
  Even so, going by how slow most bad slows are declared unconstitutional, it could give us a good 20-30 years of not having such surveillance.
throwawayway9 6y ago
Warrants are extremely easy to get, basically rubber stamped. It's so bad that LE will put in things they know are outright unconstitutional, knowing the magistrate won't really read it or care about citizen's rights.
- skrebbel 6y ago
  Even an extremely easy to get warrant takes both time and effort, by multiple people, to get. It's incomparable to an automatic feed to all the Ring cameras in a neighbourhood. It's the difference between surveillance and mass surveillance. The latter is the bigger problem and warrants will solve it.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >Even an extremely easy to get warrant takes both time and effort, And most importantly a paper trail that can be picked apart in court.

dahfizz 6y ago

Isn't the whole reason people buy those is because they back up to the cloud and they can view the feed from anywhere? CC security cameras are nothing new

manigandham 6y ago

You can buy closed circuit cameras for the past 40 years. People buy Ring to avoid the in-home infrastructure.

dredmorbius 6y ago
Hence, by law. A legal mandate avoids the race-to-the-bottom trend.
- manigandham 6y ago
  What race to the bottom? It’s a choice. People like having choices.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    When "choice" effectively limits societal options or generates massive externalities and/or long-term unpredictable impacts, all parties upon whom the "choice" impacts are not given voice, or choice. Often commonweal is a better guiding light than "choice". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom Sophie Zawistowska was offered a choice. Did her utility benefit by it? https://youtube.com/watch?v=DZ9bht5H2p4 https://youtube.com/watch?v=DZ9bht5H2p4
    - manigandham 6y ago
      It's the user's choice to use a cloud-hosted security system. They can weigh the trade-offs and risks for themselves, same as with any other system. Whether that data is accessible by law enforcement is a completely separate issue. A proper solution would be limiting this access and requiring consent and transparency, not removing infrastructure options because you think you know better than everyone else about what's best for them.
      - dredmorbius 6y ago
        The issue, by virtue of legally allowed warrantless access, is inextricably conjoined, and the impacts of that choice accrue to not only the decisionmaker, but to countless others. Your premises are false. Your proposed (and grossly insufficient) remedy is one form of legal mandate. I'd strongly commend Shoshana Zuboff, Hanna Arendt, and Paul Baran, amongst numerous others: "On the Engineer's Responsibility in Protecting Privacy", Paul Baran, 1968: https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P3829.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P3829.html Another view was expressed by AI pioneer and Nobel Laureate (economics) Herbert Simon: "The privacy issue has been raised most insistently with respect to the creation and maintenance of longitudinal data files that assemble information about persons from a multitude of sources. Files of this kind would be highly valueable for many kinds of economic and social research, but they are bought at too high a price if they endanger human freedom or seriously enhance the opportunities of blackmailers. While such dangers should not be ignored, it should be noted that the lack of comprehensive data files has never been the limiting barrier to the suppression of human freedom. The Watergate criminals made extensive, if unskillful, use of electronics, but no computer played a role in their conspiracy. The Nazis operated with horrifying effectiveness and thoroughness without the benefits of any kind of mechanized data processing." https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a9e7/33e25ee8f67d5e670b3b7dc4b8c3e00849ae.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a9e7/33e25ee8f67d5e670b3b7d... There is, of course, one slight problem with Simon's argument: The Nazis did make heavy use of mechanised data processing, provided and supported by IBM. Edwin Black documents this meticulously in his book IBM and the Holocaust: https://ibmandtheholocaust.com https://ibmandtheholocaust.com
        6y ago

easterncalculus 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine It would go against this and lots of legal precedent supporting it, so definitely an uphill battle.

mtgx 6y ago
Even so, going by how slow most bad slows are declared unconstitutional, it could give us a good 20-30 years of not having such surveillance.

throwawayway9 6y ago

Warrants are extremely easy to get, basically rubber stamped. It's so bad that LE will put in things they know are outright unconstitutional, knowing the magistrate won't really read it or care about citizen's rights.

skrebbel 6y ago
Even an extremely easy to get warrant takes both time and effort, by multiple people, to get. It's incomparable to an automatic feed to all the Ring cameras in a neighbourhood. It's the difference between surveillance and mass surveillance. The latter is the bigger problem and warrants will solve it.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >Even an extremely easy to get warrant takes both time and effort, And most importantly a paper trail that can be picked apart in court.