On 9/21/16 10:59 AM, [1]xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

That's called "Little Brother"; we (for various forms of "we") have talked
about it a lot.

Heh. Kinda funny. I called it "Little Sister" when I mentioned it to my
buddy.

   I like that.  Perhaps the well-designed incarnation should be "Little
   Sister" to be more opposite and less threatening than "Big Brother".


Yeah, those are good points you make. A voting system that could
downvote/purge irrelevant/private clips would be good. It should be motion
captured, to preserve storage/bandwidth.

Of course you're right that there are implications for misuse. I'm not
sure thats a deal-breaker for me, exactly, criminal types will use their
own tech to case a joint anyhow. Sure, maybe it lowers the bar, but there
seem to be adequate payoffs.

My main concern is the privacy implications, and the social implications,
of people who get accustomed to always being on cam. I see it evolving to
a type of super-amped up example of the Japanese concepts of honne (true
sound)/ tatemae (facade). Honne being "how one truly is" and tatemae "how
one presents themself in society." All cultures have such concepts, but
for the Japanese, they were, and are, very deeply ingrained and felt,
including nuance for different levels, and things one never says even to
their closest associates.

   In the US, we've essentially decided that a wide range of things that
   used to be private are more or less fine to be public.  Generally, at
   least in certain areas, it isn't a negative and can even be positive in
   some ways sometimes.  The fact that some laws are changing and the
   broader public is becoming more sophisticated helps a lot.  A few
   obvious examples: sexuality (now legal), soft drugs (more legal), not
   being religious, 50 Shades et al, porn, nudity, sex tapes.  All of
   those required strict privacy and partitioning in the past.

I don't know that those are trades I'm willing to make.

The black bloc tactic of smashing cameras isn't bad, except like most of
their tactics, it just won't scale. It's great for young adults with
plenty of piss and vinegar in their veins, but its not going to attract
the masses. I'm not worried about attracting the anarchist kids willing to
get facial ink to make sure they can't get a proper job and "sell out" or
willing to do a stint in the clink. They're going to be alright.

I'm more concerned with getting to the critical mass of mainstream folks.
Your points about providing a free type of security monitoring solution
for their homes might help attract them, with the side-benefits being that
it can undermine a state monopoly on surveillance.

Still.. the social costs scare me. But those costs may very well get paid
whether an open system exists, or not.



   sdw

References

   1. mailto:xorcist@sigaint.org