735
Promised myself I will support them after they go stable. They kept their promise and so did I (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
169 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

Surveillance has a lot of use cases outside of government. Palantir could have sold its services to non-profits like the ACLU as a check on local, state, and law enforcement agencies.

In theory, yes. In practice no.

ALCU could not roll a system like that out; never mind securing the resources needed to deploy this meaningfully; using it would go against their ethos, because using it would make them authoritarian, or adjacent.
Similarly, even if HOAs could deploy a system like that, that'd make them authoritarian.

Mass surveillance products like these don't have a lot of non-authoritarian uses. Even if you could find such a use (of which I'm skeptical), it'd almost certainly need to be subsidized by an authoritarian customer. We're not talking about security cameras around you personal property, here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Similarly, even if HOAs could deploy a system like that, that’d make them authoritarian.

    That really depends how the system is used. If it explicitly doesn't record regular residents and people who have signed up officially as visitors (and homeowners can review footage), I don't think the camera system itself would really be authoritarian. Yeah, the system would be capable of violating privacy, but as long as the system is transparent and reviewable by the residents, I think it can be privacy-respecting. Basically, it would be like a home security system, but across a neighborhood, and it can even be self-hosted to not let third parties access the data (and police requests would go through the HOA board, which consists of residents).

    That's my point. If the system itself can be used in a privacy-respecting way (and the vast majority can), even if it's typically not used that way, the system itself cannot be authoritarian. If an institution uses it in an authoritarian way, then the institution is authoritarian.

    In short:

    1. cameras are not authoritarian
    2. databases are not authoritarian
    3. license plate and face recognition software isn't authoritarian
    4. connecting 1-3 together in a searchable way isn't authoritarian (would be a fun hobby project)
    5. Sharing info from 4 isn't authoritarian (again, could be a fun hobby with friends)
    6. An institution (gov't, business, HOA, etc) using 4 and/or 5 to enforce policy on citizens/employees/residents/etc is authoritarian

    I have friends that use home cameras to do object classification as a hobby, mostly to identify and fee record wildlife. I've also heard of people doing this to identify package deliveries and catch package thiefs. Sharing those models with others on the internet is largely the same idea as what flock is doing, and with enough data, similar solutions to what Palantir is doing could be done entirely by hobbyists.

    The products Flock and Palantir aren't authoritarian in and of themselves, it becomes authoritarian when those products are used to enforce policy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Again, in theory in a vacuum, I agree. But I disagree that anything you describe could actually be both commercially viable and deployable without authoritarian involvement

    In your example do you not see all the gymnastics and bending over backwards you need to do to avoid the inherent nature of the system? I'd go so far as to say that the people in your theoretical HOA are analogous to supporters of a authoritarian regime.

    You're making a pro-gun argument here, and it's not convincing for similar reasons: products are more than the sum of their parts, and the actual application of a product matters more than the theoretical use. If it is nearly impossible to meaningfully use apolitically, then it is not apolitical.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I disagree that anything you describe could actually be both commercially viable and deployable without authoritarian involvement

    You haven't heard of Ring cameras? Commercial security systems? They do basically what I'm describing, just not as well because they don't have as much of an incentive. Are end users willing to pay for these more advanced models? No, so consumer grade cameras stick to object detection like deer vs racoon instead of specific individual detection (e.g. scanning eyes).

    Governments, however, are willing to pay that amount. Why? Because they think it'll help them detect criminals, and they think that helps keep people safe. It's an extension of the HOA idea, just with government-scale funds backed up with law enforcement to go after threats. That, in itself, isn't authoritarian, but setting up such a system opens the door for authoritarians to take control and misuse it.

    I'd go so far as to say that the people in your theoretical HOA are analogous to supporters of a authoritarian regime.

    Analogous, sure, but the HOA has no enforcement arm for non-residents, so all they can do is ask the police to intervene. That's the difference with a city, it has a police force it can order to intervene using information from that system. It's the mixing of enforcement and surveillance that makes it authoritarian.

    So a surveillance system is not itself authoritarian, it's only authoritarian of there's some enforcement arm to enforce obedience or punish disobedience.

    If it is nearly impossible to meaningfully use apolitically, then it is not apolitical.

    Again, I disagree. Something is only political when used for political ends.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    They do basically what I'm describing, just not as well because they don't have as much of an incentive. Are end users willing to pay for these more advanced models?

    Well there you go. It could be authoritarian, except an authoritarian govt isn't subsidizing it. Exactly like I described.

    Governments, however, are willing to pay that amount. Why?

    You keep walking straight into the points I'm making.

    That, in itself, isn't authoritarian

    Wrong. Setting up a super invasive surveillance system is inherently authoritarian, even if they initially happen to use it for reasons that don't typify authoritarianism. You have to bend over backwards so hard to keep it from becoming authoritarian, that it will just naturally corrupt any entity that deploys it, even making the monumental assumption that an entity that deploys this didn't have the intention to use it for nefarious purposes from the start.

    it's only authoritarian of there's some enforcement arm to enforce obedience or punish disobedience.

    Is a rather clumsy piece of mental gymnastics. Not only have you said it before. You can use this argument, coupled with your earlier "it's constituent parts aren't authoritarian" to argue that nothing is authoritarian.

    Again, I disagree. Something is only political when used for political ends.

    And again this is just the pro-gun argument. Fine on paper, useless in reality.

    I'm making the argument that it is possible for software to be political even if it wasn't created as such. I only need to show that a single case is possible.
    You are making the argument that it is impossible, and you keep trying to prove it by example.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent