Not signed in (Sign In)

Web Nuggets: recording experience

Bottom of Page

1 to 20 of 22

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
    •  
      CommentAuthorWillow Bl00
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2009 edited
     (5283.1)
    With all the talk recently of eye cameras (over in Mad Science and other select portions of the Internet), and the continued existence of public blogs, etc, I wonder how we're shaping our growth/monitoring each other/the like.
    The way our prisons are run, with one guard looking down for every set of prisoners, is based on the idea that if you can't be sure if you're being watched, you're more likely to self-regulate towards what's expected of you by The Man. I suppose it's also Orwellian.
    But I'm talking about monitoring each other, putting our information out there willingly for feedback from those around us. How is this impacting us?
    •  
      CommentAuthorrickiep00h
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2009
     (5283.2)
    Personally, I don't really give a shit. At least, on a conscious level. When I'm doing something I rarely think "OH GOD WHAT IF SOMEONE'S WATCHING ME?" I have been noticing through my Facebook usage and through Twitter that memes are moving increasingly faster... and that in similar circles most people's answers tend to be similar. Example: there's been, for some time, a "20 Influential Albums" meme shooting through Facebook, but most of my friends have similar answers. Is it because people expect them to leave those answers, is it because those answers are influenced by those that came before them (information cascade-style), or are they actual independent thought?

    In the larger picture, though, I think we strive for feedback, and it's the cornerstone of cybernetics. If we all lived independently, there would be little forward progress. As much as monitoring festers with expectations, I think it also fosters innovation by opening up new ideas to the "hive" mind. I think we, as a society, tend to gravitate more toward the expectation part more than the innovation, but I also think we don't have enough people wanting to work past expectations.

    I have no idea if any of that addresses what you were after, but I hope it's good input. I always love your questions, Willow.
    • CommentAuthorlooneynerd
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2009
     (5283.3)
    I think a lot of it comes down to individual ability. I've been a lot of places that actively monitor phone conversations, internet useage, censor the internet, and, in some cases, actively bug hotel or guest rooms. A couple of engineer friends have taught me a way to avoid all of these little invasions of privacy. I'm sure that as the technology evolves, people will come up with ways to beat the system.
  4.  (5283.4)
    Re the 'official' tracking and recording - It's making me quite resentful, especially when it doesn't go the other way (it's now pretty much illegal to photograph a UK policeman and photographers are routinely harrassed...). I dislike the idea that my transactions and phone calls and my travel round London can be pretty easily tracked, that I can be filmed by hundreds of cameras on the way in to work, and that's now just normal. I hate being constantly reminded that 'it's for your safety and security', because I don't believe it is...

    On the other hand, I think there are lots of positives to be had from feedback, and increasing access to it - for me on a personal level, online interraction helps mitigate the sense of isolation I have that all of my 'meatspace' friends no longer live anywhere near me, and I'll go six months often between seeing anyone socially other than people I work with (and I work 80 miles from where I live). Although I'm often quite scornful of the trivia bullshit that Facebook spits at you, it's quite pleasant to 'see' those people there. I don't put stuff that I'd consider really private online publicly, I think there are risks to doing so that I'd like to avoid, but in general the open sharing of thoughts and knowledge feels miraculous. I have solved pretty much every computer problem I've had through the net, I fixed my partner's car and saved a huge garage bill thanks to a forum I found through Google, plus countless issues at work, because people are willing to collaborate and share.
  5.  (5283.5)
    I refer also to different levels of disclosure: I can do something in my private life and not blog about it. Maybe I write in my (kickass Astro-Boy) journal about it. If I blog about it, then even if I take the information down later, people have read it. It's a part of the group consciousness. Maybe people treat me differently for it. Or maybe I do something in a less-than-private setting, but don't blog about it. Maybe somebody does it for me. Am I more likely to regulate my actions because it might show up on FaceBook, and before I can untag it my mom sees it (assuming I didn't know how to use filter options correctly)?
    I'm all for transparency, but I'm also all for consent. We seem to be hobbling about, not quite sure how to balance these out. Also reminds me of people who disclose everything online. And those who believe they are anonymous but aren't actually. Just like the Cat Abuser fucker dude, and using background clues to find out where and who he was.

    Just brain goop, really. I suppose what I really want to know is how people regulate themselves and the information about them, or if they even make the effort.
    •  
      CommentAuthorrickiep00h
    • CommentTimeMar 13th 2009
     (5283.6)
    I look at it this way: I have a driver's license. While it's still for where I used to live, 900 miles away, it could very well lead someone to where I live now, were they inclined to connect enough dots. If you have a secret, you keep it to yourself. That's how a secret works. As soon as you tell someone or post it on the internet, everyone knows. It's no secret that I live where I live, or that I'm married, or that I have a daughter, or any of that stuff that one would consider "personal". The only stuff I attempt to keep to myself are financial numbers and such, but even then, my SSN has gone on so many job applications and credit applications and other crap that I wouldn't be surprised in the least if some asshole got a hold of that stuff.

    In regard to being wary of what gets onto Facebook... if I'm at a party and someone catches me having a drink and laughing, fine. If I'm being a tremendous douche and beer-bonging, well I guess that's probably who I am, huh? People go to extreme lengths to convince people they are something other than they are, and then wonder when they get fired six months later for showing up hung over for the third Monday in a row. I think if we were more honest as a society (and more logical as employers/employees) then we wouldn't really have to worry about things like this.

    In short, if you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to hide. Of course, if you want to get all Orwellian--which may or may not be appropriate, depending on where and who you are--then yes, being under constant surveillance can be pretty frightening. But really, in purer intentions, is it really that bad? Cameras in the streets can be used for spying on individuals or they can be used for actually monitoring hooligans. If you don't want to be caught doing something, don't do it. If you don't care if you get caught, whatever.

    Really, I think the US is a long way from the 1984/V for Vendetta society that we're supposedly heading toward. Call me a sheep, whatever. I'll probably call you paranoid.
  7.  (5283.7)
    I don't find it that benign. If I've got nothing to hide, then nobody has any reason to watch me and store data on me in case I do something wrong. I find the arrogance of people who expect to have unlimited power 'in order to combat the ever-present threat of terror/wrongdoing/insubordination' really disturbing. They've put cameras on the fridges at work for christ's sake, in case people steal each other's sandwiches. I also had a run in with a policeman a couple of years ago after he threatened to arrest a friend for saying 'cunt' within earshot of a pollice officer (this was in a conversation, he wasn't shouting). The officer told me, fairly gleefully, 'since the first of January I can arrest you for what I like, I don't have to have a reason'. I've seen the security guards at work run outside to stop Japanese tourists from taking pictures of the building (something the tourists have every right to do). It just seems to me that the whole surveillance/paranioa/monitoring thing is breeding a generation of nasty little tinpot dictators. I get concerned about the interlinking and sharing of data and the consequences it might have - like the cases of people finding out about a partner's pregnancy because their loyalty card data has started sending them vouchers for nappies based on a pregnancy test kit purchase.

    Going back to Facebook, I think there's an element of concern about what other people might post about you. If I have pictures of me at a party, it's my choice whether I post them or not. If I want to put a picture of me out of my skull vomiting into a flowerpot, then I'm pretty stupid if that's going to get me into trouble at work. If someone else posts a picture they've taken of me doing (or appearing to do it) it I may not have any control over that and it may affect my career. My partying may not have any affect on my professional life, but people may make a judgement about me based on something that has nothing to do with work or them. To say then that 'if you don't want to get caught doing it don't do it' is a bit simplistic. I don't think it's paranoid when people lose their jobs over stuff like this.
  8.  (5283.8)
    Something else that I find very interesting is the normalisation of surveillance on children's TV. There seem to be a lot of programmes which suggest that covert filming and ubiquitous surveillance is perfectly normal.

    In Balamory, PC Plum keeps a photo-file on everyone in the village - presumably even though they haven't done anything. In Numberjacks, the er, sentient sponge numbers that live inside a sofa can see anywhere and monitor everything. So can the Bobinogs, strange little Welsh people who have all-seeing binoculars. There's Lazytown which seems to have cameras that can see everywhere all over it. Then there are the Teletubbies, who have tv screens in their stomachs and antennae on their heads... perhaps I am paranoid, but I just find it wierd.
    • CommentAuthorlooneynerd
    • CommentTimeMar 13th 2009
     (5283.9)
    @JonCarpenter

    Under facebook's privacy options, it's possible for you to set it so other people can not tag you in pictures.
  10.  (5283.10)
    I don't have to be tagged for it to be a problem, and it doesn't have to be Facebook - someone could upload a mobile phone video of me at a party to YouTube, I might not have had any awareness I've been filmed. I'm not particularly worried by it myself (I don't think I've done anything that heinous for a while), but I think people are fairly cavalier with other people's privacy - what they do with their own is their business, but there's a danger of fucking someone else's life up for a cheap laugh.
    •  
      CommentAuthorrickiep00h
    • CommentTimeMar 14th 2009
     (5283.11)
    if that's going to get me into trouble at work.

    That's the point I was trying to make. If I'm a fantastic drunk outside of work, whatever. If it actually affects my performance at work, then I'm probably going to get fired. If they fire me because I went to a party, I have a complaint. If they fire me because I showed up to work drunk and passed out in the backroom, I have zero complaint when they use it as evidence. If they say I'm a drunk, but I'm not, there's every reason to fight it. If I am a drunk, then there isn't.
    They've put cameras on the fridges at work for christ's sake, in case people steal each other's sandwiches.

    Then don't steal people's sandwiches. What else are they going to find out about you from the fridge? That you're drinking Fresca? That you had a ham sandwich for lunch when you normally have tuna? Big deal.

    What gets back to is that a lot of people just don't like being accountable for their actions. Protesters think it's perfectly fine to record actions of police brutality but get in a huff when they put a camera on a stoplight to catch speeders or people that run red lights? Seems pretty hypocritical to me.
    I've seen the security guards at work run outside to stop Japanese tourists from taking pictures of the building (something the tourists have every right to do). It just seems to me that the whole surveillance/paranioa/monitoring thing is breeding a generation of nasty little tinpot dictators.

    I think that it's breeding a bunch of people that don't know where the next threat is going to come from because terrorism doesn't have a face. Am I defending the police that confiscate cameras of ordinary tourists? No. But I'm attempting to understand the thinking behind it. There is always a person on the other side of the camera, on both sides of the law. It's not the surveillance, it's what people do with it. Which was my whole point about society and honesty. If you have shifty bastards using tracking for shifty purposes, it's not the tracking that's the problem, it's the shifty people.

    Really, if you're not in your own home, you're being watched. By other people, by cameras, by audio surveillance, by your friends and neighbors. To expect privacy and anonymity in a situation like that is unrealistic. Any time you do something on the internet, you're being watched and recorded because, at least to a point, it's a necessity of the system. Same with a telephone network. But it's what people do with that information that makes a difference, not that there's a gathering of information. Watching my credit card purchases are one thing, but if I get taken down because I bought the makings for meth at a series of stores over the course of a week, all I have to do is demonstrate that no, I'm not making meth. Do I really care that someone somewhere knows that I've purchased Slaughterhouse-Five and a porn movie? Not really. Maybe that's just me, but I don't really think it's something to hide.

    JonC, I don't want it to sound like I have an argument with you specifically, because I understand your point, and I agree that not all of the tracking that is done is benign. But I also happen to think that not all of it is malicious, either. Pretty sure most of the entities that have some sort of digs on me are trying to sell me something, and I just ignore them anyway.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJP Carpenter
    • CommentTimeMar 14th 2009 edited
     (5283.12)
    JonC, I don't want it to sound like I have an argument with you specifically


    No worries, it's a civilised discussion so far :-). I get what you're saying, in some respects I agree, but I think we're just coming from opposite ends of the spectrum...


    If they fire me because I went to a party, I have a complaint.


    Yes, but they might not hire or promote you, which would be damn hard to prove. Managers don't always follow process. A firm may have a policy of not monitoring its employees on social network sites, hiring managers may well go off piste. If you and I are competing for a job, I might feed the boss some out of context shit that Freddy's posted about you on his MySpace page

    Then don't steal people's sandwiches. What else are they going to find out about you from the fridge? That you're drinking Fresca? That you had a ham sandwich for lunch when you normally have tuna? Big deal.


    It's petty, and it costs. Installing 16 cctv cameras in an 8 storey building isn't a trivial cost to deter maybe one fuckwit out of 3500 people who's nicked someone's lunch. The cost of all of this watching and tracking has to be astronomical. A lot of it will end up with snake oil IT consultancies who can't deliver anything and burn through massive piles of taxpayer's money. The new cameras in the station subway didn't stop theives hacking off the front of the ticket machine and nicking the contents last week...

    What gets back to is that a lot of people just don't like being accountable for their actions. Protesters think it's perfectly fine to record actions of police brutality but get in a huff when they put a camera on a stoplight to catch speeders or people that run red lights? Seems pretty hypocritical to me.


    I agree with you here, except that if the police are allowed to record the protesters, the protesters should be allowed to record the police. What seems to be happening in the UK is that the authorities are becoming more powerful and less accountable. I don't have a problem with traffic cameras to stop people killing each other with cars....


    You're also right about it being about what people do with it. Catching people who blow up tube trains is fine (although they didn't catch them, they still blew up the trains, but it's easier to find who did it)... the current governments might be relatively benign, perhaps now if I've not done anything 'wrong' I've got nothing to fear, but what if 'their' definition of 'wrong' changes so it becomes radically misaligned with my current values? It becomes illegal to protest about anything? I don't know if I want to live in a society where all of my actions are fed into some big computer which is predicting what I'm going to do next.


    Maybe resistance is futile, and I'm making too much of all this, but I hate feeling like a fucking lab rat.
    • CommentAuthorlooneynerd
    • CommentTimeMar 14th 2009
     (5283.13)
    I've read though that this whole thing has been an issue for some time; people were worried about having pictures of them taken as cameras became more mobile, and I've read about many uproars when things like surveillance cameras were installed in stores and parking lots early-on. What are the chances of us just getting used to it like we have before?
  14.  (5283.14)
    Yeah, we will get used to it like we have before. I guess we're just in a phase of negotiating how all this stuff works, and the rules are all rearranging themselves.
    •  
      CommentAuthorrickiep00h
    • CommentTimeMar 14th 2009
     (5283.15)
    @looney

    I think it's a perception thing: it's fine when we're monitoring ourselves, but it's so much worse when The Man is doing it.

    @JonC

    I think a big part of it is the cultural difference: you're in the UK (I assume), I'm in the US. People here have a tendency to just forget about things pretty quickly. I think, despite evidence otherwise, a good most of the people in the US are oblivious and roll over a lot faster than our UK pals. I mean, I really don't think George Orwell or Alan Moore could have come from the US because most people here just don't care. Which is sad. And I'm not sure we've hit the level of pervasiveness that it seems to have over there, either. I might be wrong; I've never been to New York or LA, the largest city I've been to is Chicago, and there didn't seem to be much of a fuss about surveillance there. (Of course, that was 9 years ago that I was last in downtown...)

    Also, though, maybe there's something to what Willow was saying in the OP... what is the crime like in the UK? I don't hear about it being as severe or as commonplace as it is here. Does the surveillance have anything to do with that, or are the people genuinely that different? Or is it just good P.R. by the tourism boards over there?
  16.  (5283.16)
    I think the level of crime in the UK depends on where you go... where I live, there's virtually none at all. Nothing. But elsewhere it's pretty bad in places - some bits of London, the inner cities, although nowhere near as bad as in the States, as I understand it. Our police aren't routinely armed, we don't have a great deal of gun crime. I don't know how much is prevented by surveillance, I guess a fair bit of low-level, petty crime is deterred.

    I don't think a lot of people here are making much of a fuss about monitoring. Guess a lot of people feel comforted by the presence of cameras. I flip the cameras a v-sign now and then though.


    We might have derailed the thread from its original point - Willow, I think was asking whether people regulate themselves in case things show up publicly - I guess I do, especially in places where I'm identifiable by name/face, like here or Facebook. There are complexities when relationships are involved, having somewhere like Facebook on which different groups of people - friends, family, colleagues - converge can be tricky to manage. What effect does it have on trust if you blatantly block bits of yourself from various groups?
  17.  (5283.17)
    I have a problem when there is a lack of transparency for cameras are installed for. Apparently if you live in London they have cameras all over, monitoring who knows what. At the same time, they're passing laws against taking pictures of police. That's a one-way system that only allows the people in power to make mistakes without any worry of prosecution if they make a mistake.

    What's going on over there that prevents a majority backlash against this sort of thing?
  18.  (5283.18)
    What's going on over there that prevents a majority backlash against this sort of thing?


    We like it that way. Or something.
  19.  (5283.19)
    I think the issue of being watched by "the Man" is completely different, though worth exploring. Any other thoughts on being viewed by peers?
    • CommentAuthorlooneynerd
    • CommentTimeMar 15th 2009
     (5283.20)
    Yeah, out of curiosity I looked up murder/homicide rates because of the crime question. In the past 12 months, London has had 153 deaths caused by another person (Murder OR Manslaughter). Cincinnatti has had 183 deaths in the past 12 months (I'm not sure if this is combining both Murder and Manslaughter). Cinci has only had 30 more... but then take into account populations. According to Wikipedia, the est. population in London in 2007 was over 7.5 million, while Cinci came it at a whopping 332,000. Even if you factor in the total metro population (which is actually made of of Cinci and two smaller cities across the river) it barely comes to 2 million.

1 to 20 of 22

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >