We are having an anti-technological moment.
-
@DrorBedrack @futurebird Most modern phones can do that though.
@thalassophobic @futurebird yes, but they are cumbersome and you have to keep holding them and look at them.
Which is also the point about the glasses being a surveilance tool. Yes, you could already record people without them being aware. But the glasses make it much easier. -
@Timpostma @futurebird I've encountered a couple of "people" who claim to support the warrantless surveillance, but they all struck me as frightened little boot-lickers, not brave patriots.
@Ambulocetus @futurebird i am Canadian I just want to know who is trustpassing & who is stealing #cars or who breaks in a house that’s why for my area
-
@futurebird it depends on risk & if you value #security or #privacy more & many people feel at risk enough to put security first
@Timpostma @futurebird This is an argument for more streetlights, more cameras, more prisons, etc. We have more people in prison per capita than anywhere else in the world. Does it make you feel safer?
Overall, the US is safer now than ever before, but it's not because of video surveillance; it's because we created a more equal society over the years.
We are more at risk because of the inequities that are growing in our country than anything else. And guns- guns are a problem too.
-
@futurebird it's decidedly minor but as someone with a pretty bad memory, if you asked me 10, 15, 20 years ago, camera glasses would have been a dream come true. Like having a camcorder i don't need to pull out and turn on, so i can look back on moments. But now?
@goaty @futurebird There’s a Black Mirror cautionary tale about that, "The Entire History of You".
-
@futurebird sight and/or hearing impaired people say the glasses are a life saver. They can describe what they see or add subtitles to chats.
Sure. And the smart-glasses companies know their product is an absolute PR disaster so they're giving away free to such impaired folks in order to counter the hate with "oh so you hate DISABLED PEOPLE?"
The balance is stuff like THIS versus accessibility: https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/teen-boys-meta-glasses-harass-bully-girls-school
Maybe we should require medical prescriptions to even own these things, at minimum. They should definitely be heavily regulated.
-
@Timpostma @futurebird This is an argument for more streetlights, more cameras, more prisons, etc. We have more people in prison per capita than anywhere else in the world. Does it make you feel safer?
Overall, the US is safer now than ever before, but it's not because of video surveillance; it's because we created a more equal society over the years.
We are more at risk because of the inequities that are growing in our country than anything else. And guns- guns are a problem too.
I do think some forms of surveillance have played a role in some crimes becoming less common. For example that fact that few people use or carry cash and the difficulty in stealing credit cards have kind of ended mugging as a NYC crime. The fact that phones can be traced made phone snatching stop. (remember when subway phone snatching was an issue for a few months?)
-
@futurebird sight and/or hearing impaired people say the glasses are a life saver. They can describe what they see or add subtitles to chats.
@DrorBedrack @futurebird They can be, but the blind people I know also say
* they don't offer much functionality that phone apps alone do not
* they're not set up to be accessible for us; they're for sighted people
* some of us recognize this as undermining civil liberties in the name of disability rights and call this cripwashing
* it's only been a few days since I've seen a blind person say they'll never wera these because they don't want to be punched in the face because of them -
We are having an anti-technological moment.
* spy camera glasses
* datacenters: the physical plant
* AI slop proliferation
* AI assisted mental health criseses
* spy cameras in public spaces (flock and others)
* social media consolidation and controlBut, of course it isn't really about the technology itself, it almost never is, it's about HOW and to/for WHO the technology is being deployed. And it's about the absence of a clear WHY.
So I have to ask "is this really new?"
@futurebird
This seems to me very akin to the Middle Ages when vast amounts of personal data were gathered by the ruling level and used, then, to determine our ability to get into heaven when we die. Let alone the clergy after confession having the embarrassing details of everyone in a small community. Technology has just made the ability of the information class village way larger.
And I do not understand why anyone needs AI that basically searches and collates data. There are other areas, expert systems for example, where AI can be useful but these can be stored in local computers and accessed as needed, where needed. The building of mega data-farms is just a way for individuals of already extraordinary wealth to amass more money, influence and power. -
@Timpostma @futurebird I've encountered a couple of "people" who claim to support the warrantless surveillance, but they all struck me as frightened little boot-lickers, not brave patriots.
@Ambulocetus @futurebird I understand that all their is need for #survailance only at real estate places like #busniess , homes , roads , etc but only for protection from #crime think of it this way if a pink car was found at abc street in front of 123 road at 14:00 within 10 meters that’s all they need for a whiteness but searches shouldn’t be done without a warrant
-
Employers will use them to decide who is really efficient, who is taking too long on their lunch break.
A man watching kids play at the park with camera glasses isn't going to send a video to Grandma of his kid doing an amazing jump. We don't even want to think about what he's up to.
It's hard to imagine or expect anything good coming from any of this technology.
@futurebird None of the tech that gets headlines is innovative, it's iterative at best. I think these people are convinced that their companies will grow forever and fear becoming stable value companies more than death.
-
@thalassophobic @futurebird yes, but they are cumbersome and you have to keep holding them and look at them.
Which is also the point about the glasses being a surveilance tool. Yes, you could already record people without them being aware. But the glasses make it much easier.@DrorBedrack @futurebird Still, a phone would be a nicer option in the long run, especially since they are proppable, can be worn on the arm, can be used for a lot more stuff than subtitles, and they offer more privacy, which many disabled people still want.
Even eye-readers have decent tech and just need that tech to be improved and affordable instead of getting glasses. There's even necklaces you can add to your phone to make it able to be taken off and not impact anything. Glasses can get lost. I'm wearing glasses right now and I've lost many a pair.
-
@futurebird sight and/or hearing impaired people say the glasses are a life saver. They can describe what they see or add subtitles to chats.
@DrorBedrack @futurebird sounds similar to the accessibility benefits of cars or delivery services. While none are really designed for accessibility and are not really ideal even, they do offer benefits for a population who are generally treated like s$!t. I don’t think it justifies the enormous harm these “solutions” do (including to disabled groups)
-
@futurebird sight and/or hearing impaired people say the glasses are a life saver. They can describe what they see or add subtitles to chats.
Ok. Make them prescription-only.
My _contact lenses_ are, and the possible harm they might cause if misused is pretty limited.
-
We are having an anti-technological moment.
* spy camera glasses
* datacenters: the physical plant
* AI slop proliferation
* AI assisted mental health criseses
* spy cameras in public spaces (flock and others)
* social media consolidation and controlBut, of course it isn't really about the technology itself, it almost never is, it's about HOW and to/for WHO the technology is being deployed. And it's about the absence of a clear WHY.
So I have to ask "is this really new?"
@futurebird This time - yes it is
-
Who feels at risk like that? None of this stuff is broadly popular.
@futurebird I do , my neighbour do , most homes on my lock has a #security camera it used to not be like this but people have less trust in strangers then they used to
-
I do think some forms of surveillance have played a role in some crimes becoming less common. For example that fact that few people use or carry cash and the difficulty in stealing credit cards have kind of ended mugging as a NYC crime. The fact that phones can be traced made phone snatching stop. (remember when subway phone snatching was an issue for a few months?)
@futurebird @RegGuy exactly
-
We are having an anti-technological moment.
* spy camera glasses
* datacenters: the physical plant
* AI slop proliferation
* AI assisted mental health criseses
* spy cameras in public spaces (flock and others)
* social media consolidation and controlBut, of course it isn't really about the technology itself, it almost never is, it's about HOW and to/for WHO the technology is being deployed. And it's about the absence of a clear WHY.
So I have to ask "is this really new?"
@futurebird Random thought, but I suspect nothing could kill meta glasses faster than big, official looking signs around parks, playgrounds and schools saying 'No recording glasses in this area', preferably with words 'children' and 'safety' somewhere nearby.
If all those anti-flock activists want to spread some momentum to fight pervert glasses, printing signs like that and sticking them up at would make everyone wearing a pair look like a predator in no time.
-
Most of the trends are rather old. You don't need cameras, AI or wifi to make a panopticon. And at this point we all have experience with these systems. This is why no one is really even discussing "but what if FLOCK cameras can reduce crime and make us safer?" -- we already know that's not what this is about.
No one is going to track down your stolen bike with those cameras.
Abusers will use them to find their victims. Powerful people will use them to make lists of enemies of the state.
@futurebird Turns out the rich & a lot of assholes want the Stasi back, and the rest of us say "HEY, maybe that sucked!"
-
Employers will use them to decide who is really efficient, who is taking too long on their lunch break.
A man watching kids play at the park with camera glasses isn't going to send a video to Grandma of his kid doing an amazing jump. We don't even want to think about what he's up to.
It's hard to imagine or expect anything good coming from any of this technology.
@futurebird I feel like for quite a while it was "common sense" that surveillance was a bad thing, with it only occasionally being made explicit that this came out of the experience of unconstrained authoritarianism. Like, when we started getting traffic cameras on street corners, people were uneasy about them. I think that idea has been gradually chipped away.
-
We are having an anti-technological moment.
* spy camera glasses
* datacenters: the physical plant
* AI slop proliferation
* AI assisted mental health criseses
* spy cameras in public spaces (flock and others)
* social media consolidation and controlBut, of course it isn't really about the technology itself, it almost never is, it's about HOW and to/for WHO the technology is being deployed. And it's about the absence of a clear WHY.
So I have to ask "is this really new?"
@futurebird Resistance against #fascism takes many forms.
