5 ms·

I’m not sure an absence of surveillance is what creates “humane trust”. I’m certain we had locks on doors and security guards before the internet.

feanaro 3mo ago
Surveillance is decidedly and completely unlike locks.
- DriverDaily 3mo ago
  Surveillance and locks are both imperfect solutions to the trust problem.
- HPsquared 3mo ago
  Surveillance can remove the need for locks.
  - rbk1234 2mo ago
    I'd prefer locks, they work passively and do not reduce privacy or create endless busywork.
causal 3mo ago
So you can also destroy trust other ways. What’s your point?
majormajor 3mo ago
Yeah the trust was gone pre-internet, pre-networked-cameras. People would've thrown doorbell cams on their front door at the same time as the deadbolt if they'd had the option. Many of the high-trust smaller societies before those locks were actually pretty low privacy.
roughly 3mo ago
Trust involves risk - someone has to be willing to risk having their trust violated. The problem in modern western society is that we’ve decided we’re unwilling to take that risk, and therefore we’ve begun imposing what’s effectively a panopticon state on those with less power than us, with the consequence that the kinds of things we with power get away with fine - driving over the speed limit, being a couple minutes late to get a task done, getting sick or injured - cascade into severe circumstances by the cold logic of the system we’ve built to make ourselves feel better (job loss, money paying fines instead of food or medicine, etc). The answer to this is if you don’t trust your domestic worker to not steal from you, either hire one you do or go do your own damn domestic work, and if the company you’re paying to provide a service doesn’t trust their own workers enough to not keep them under constant surveillance, go find one that does. The panopticon is a cheap answer that lets us pretend we don’t need to put the work in to manage our own lives while leveraging the power of the state to subjugate everyone further down the socioeconomic ladder from us.
- reliabilityguy 2mo ago
  > imposing what’s effectively a panopticon state on those with less power than us I would say that cameras are protecting the honest worker as much as they help the homeowner. > The answer to this is if you don’t trust your domestic worker to not steal from you, either hire one you do or go do your own damn domestic work Why only these two choices? The worker is free to not take the work at a place with cameras. No one forces them.
  - roughly 2mo ago
    > I would say that cameras are protecting the honest worker as much as they help the homeowner. The cameras are a means of rigidly enforcing the rules, to a degree that traffic on the way back from lunch becomes something that threatens one’s employment. You and I bend the rules a thousand times a day in ways big and small because the world does not accommodate rigid rules and that’s fine; the workers under panopticon surveillance are not afforded the same grace we are to navigate the circumstances where the rules and reality conflict. > No one forces them. Their landlord forces them. A tight labor market forces them. Time pressure forces them. Bills force them. Hunger forces them. Our entire system forces them.
    - reliabilityguy 2mo ago
      This is extremely once-sided view. Cameras protect employees from unfounded accusations. Cameras provide alibi to those who may be suspects, saving time and money. And so on. You are only seeing the negative side of cameras, but there are positives as well. > Their landlord forces them. A tight labor market forces them. Time pressure forces them. Bills force them. Hunger forces them. Our entire system forces them. Nope, they are free to walk away, rent without cameras, etc, etc.
      - roughly 2mo ago
        They are indeed free to go live under a bridge, until the police tell them to move on.
groundzeros2015 2mo ago
Hmm, you think it has no psychological impact at all? Can you explain further?

feanaro 3mo ago

Surveillance is decidedly and completely unlike locks.

DriverDaily 3mo ago
Surveillance and locks are both imperfect solutions to the trust problem.
HPsquared 3mo ago
Surveillance can remove the need for locks.
- rbk1234 2mo ago
  I'd prefer locks, they work passively and do not reduce privacy or create endless busywork.

causal 3mo ago

So you can also destroy trust other ways. What’s your point?

majormajor 3mo ago

Yeah the trust was gone pre-internet, pre-networked-cameras. People would've thrown doorbell cams on their front door at the same time as the deadbolt if they'd had the option. Many of the high-trust smaller societies before those locks were actually pretty low privacy.

roughly 3mo ago

Trust involves risk - someone has to be willing to risk having their trust violated. The problem in modern western society is that we’ve decided we’re unwilling to take that risk, and therefore we’ve begun imposing what’s effectively a panopticon state on those with less power than us, with the consequence that the kinds of things we with power get away with fine - driving over the speed limit, being a couple minutes late to get a task done, getting sick or injured - cascade into severe circumstances by the cold logic of the system we’ve built to make ourselves feel better (job loss, money paying fines instead of food or medicine, etc). The answer to this is if you don’t trust your domestic worker to not steal from you, either hire one you do or go do your own damn domestic work, and if the company you’re paying to provide a service doesn’t trust their own workers enough to not keep them under constant surveillance, go find one that does. The panopticon is a cheap answer that lets us pretend we don’t need to put the work in to manage our own lives while leveraging the power of the state to subjugate everyone further down the socioeconomic ladder from us.

reliabilityguy 2mo ago
> imposing what’s effectively a panopticon state on those with less power than us I would say that cameras are protecting the honest worker as much as they help the homeowner. > The answer to this is if you don’t trust your domestic worker to not steal from you, either hire one you do or go do your own damn domestic work Why only these two choices? The worker is free to not take the work at a place with cameras. No one forces them.
- roughly 2mo ago
  > I would say that cameras are protecting the honest worker as much as they help the homeowner. The cameras are a means of rigidly enforcing the rules, to a degree that traffic on the way back from lunch becomes something that threatens one’s employment. You and I bend the rules a thousand times a day in ways big and small because the world does not accommodate rigid rules and that’s fine; the workers under panopticon surveillance are not afforded the same grace we are to navigate the circumstances where the rules and reality conflict. > No one forces them. Their landlord forces them. A tight labor market forces them. Time pressure forces them. Bills force them. Hunger forces them. Our entire system forces them.
  - reliabilityguy 2mo ago
    This is extremely once-sided view. Cameras protect employees from unfounded accusations. Cameras provide alibi to those who may be suspects, saving time and money. And so on. You are only seeing the negative side of cameras, but there are positives as well. > Their landlord forces them. A tight labor market forces them. Time pressure forces them. Bills force them. Hunger forces them. Our entire system forces them. Nope, they are free to walk away, rent without cameras, etc, etc.
    - roughly 2mo ago
      They are indeed free to go live under a bridge, until the police tell them to move on.

groundzeros2015 2mo ago

Hmm, you think it has no psychological impact at all? Can you explain further?