upvote

points

by JCattheATM2 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby fn-mote1 hours ago|
next
[-]
That’s what this ENTIRE conversation is about… the (ostensible) trade off between surveillance and security.

In the case of an attack, I’d wish for a gendarme not a recording that would let me relive the experience.

reply
upvoteby JCattheATM1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Right, and I was saying it's wrong not to want surveillance in a super public area like a train station.

A gendarme is worse in every way.

reply
upvoteby wat1000011 minutes ago|
prev|
next
[-]
If I had a choice, I think I’d prefer not to have my death recorded and viewed by many strangers.
reply
upvoteby ProllyInfamous1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I'd argue they should be better positioned, to minimize off-railroad property intrusion.
reply
upvoteby JCattheATM1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
They still need to capture incidents in the station itself.
reply
upvoteby fn-mote1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
This argument justifies CCTV surveillance of all public places.

Is that what you intend to be arguing for? In any case, there needs to be more nuance in the discussion than a one-liner.

I think the quantity of surveillance matters. When it’s just a few places, then it’s a minor intrusion on liberty. When it’s a lot of places, it’s a major intrusion that will facilitate the (further) rise of authoritarianism.

reply
upvoteby JCattheATM1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> This argument justifies CCTV surveillance of all public places.

Well, yeah, I think that was super obvious, no?

> In any case, there needs to be more nuance in the discussion than a one-liner.

Not really. Super public busy places like train stations ought to be surveilled. The benefits far outweigh any cons.

reply
upvoteby _carbyau_37 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
There is far more nuance than this.

What counts as a "super public busy place" ? The airport? The bus terminal? The local library? All major roads that experience rush hour traffic?

Who is the person who says where the cutoff line is? What if that authority wants to move the line to include everything? Or nothing? Do they even need to provide notice to the public of their actions?

Who should be able to access to all this footage? Public? Government investigative branches only? What about the system administrators?

Does this footage require attestation to prove it's legitimacy in a world where AI can generate footage?

How long should this footage exist for? Do I have to trust not just current admins and their superiors but all the people who may be in those roles in perpetuity? IE do I have to trust people who haven't even been born yet?

Is it allowed to be centralised, so people can easily be tracked from one site to another for every step outside their house? Or should each site have separate data housing with access terms to match so that tracking a person is a significant task?

.. ..

There are a lot of concerns. You may argue that there isn't a lot of nuances because you have a set idea of how it should all go. But others may differ.

reply
upvoteby vkou25 minutes ago|
prev|
[-]
The CCTV won't do shit to stop me from being attacked, it's a camera, not a cop. It's only useful for figuring out who to blame after the fact.

But there are other ways that we could figure out who to blame after the fact that don't require everything you will ever do to be recorded, forever.

reply