alt Hacker NewsI’m anti surveillance but I don’t get this take.
Every uber driver I’ve been ive been in has an inside dashcam to protect themselves and their property. I would do the same thing if I were them.
Waymo has every right to monitor their property and if someone does something illegal in their car why would they not report? An Uber driver would do the same, as would I. Otherwise you are an accomplice.
This comparison to Flock is bunk. Flock cameras are in public places and paid for with public dollars. I don’t want that.
But in a surveillance state, every private citizen should be keeping their own footage. Nobody is going to share theirs with you.
Replies
> I’m anti surveillance but I don’t get this take.
Some people foresee a future where self-driving cars are the norm. The big prize being fewer deaths on the road (about 40k people per year in the USA) which is a pretty big prize.
If today's self-driving cars are heavy on the AI surveillance of passengers, and you foresee self-driving cars doing 90% of journeys within your lifetime, that's a pretty ominous situation.
Especially if you interpret it in light of EU driver-facing-camera mandates.
But what if I've done nothing illegal and they only think I have?
It depends on if you think private surveillance should exist to help the property owner in court, after something happens to them, e.g. the taxi driver getting robbed or the Waymo getting vandalized, or if you think private surveillance should exist solely to pipe any and all actual or imagined crimes to law enforcement in real time.
Private surveillance that immediately sends any and all crimes to law enforcement is indistinguishable from government surveillance and should treated the same way.