← Back to context

Comment by ceejayoz

11 hours ago

> This idea that there's some kind of difference between me watching you in public and Flock watching you in public is, quite frankly, bogus.

The idea that there's not a scale difference is, quite frankly, bogus.

Okay, can you articulate the difference?

I don't disagree that quantity has a quality of it's own in some circumstances, but that's not an inherent property of "quantity".

  • You peeking out your curtains at me is fine. It doesn’t scale.

    Everyone doing it 24/7 via their cameras and running it through AI analysis and providing it to the cops for $$$ is not.

    • What if I run my own cameras, my own local models, and my own analysis? All from the privacy of my own home... Is that okay?

      What if I recruit a few friends around my town to do the same, and we share data and findings? Is that also fine?

      What if I pay a bunch of people I don't know to collect this data for me, but do all the analysis myself?

      Where do you draw the line? Being able to concretely define a line here is something I've seen privacy proponents be utterly incapable of doing. Yet it's important to do so, because on one end of the spectrum is a set of protected liberties, and on the other is authoritarian dystopia. If you can't define some point at which freedom stops being freedom, you leave the door wide open to the kind of bullshit arguments we see any time "privacy in public" comes up: 100% feels, and 0% logic.

      1 reply →

  • The difference is that Flock is stalking me, not incidentally watching me.

> This idea that there's some kind of difference between me watching you from a park bench in public and hundreds of thousands of clones of me watching you from every street corner in public is, quite frankly, bogus

To paraphrase the quote, quantity has a quality of its own.

  • To paraphrase the quote, quantity has a quality of its own.

    The central dogma of machine learning. Which Flock and its defenders know very well.