The NYT is all hot'n'bothered by this but somehow I'm a lot less sussed than I could be. Part of it is probably that there are plenty of cameras to watch in Newark. Part of it is probably that the probably-lives-with-opiates neighbor kid decided to (a) come into the house and steal my daughter's boots so he could throw them on the roof (b) climb up on the hood of my Porsche and jump up and down so I'm thinking of going full Sliver on this place to match what I have at the business.

I dunno. I would argue that having big brother watching you is deeply dispiriting... but having big brother hand you the binoculars takes some of the edge off. That's just my opinion, though, and I'm curious as to everyone else's thoughts.


goobster:

There is an interesting bit of dichotomous thinking going on with security cameras.

On one hand, we have known of, and see, security cameras throughout our lives since at least the 1980's. These have gone from bulky things with wires, to little wireless things, but the idea is the same: Security Is Watching.

Over the last decade, cameras have become web-enabled and ubiquitous. So now anyone can log in to tens of thousands - possibly millions - of unsecured cameras all over the world. Anybody could be watching.

So what is the practical difference between the "acceptable" type of Security Camera, where an overweight, $7/hr high-school dropout watches you on camera, versus, a random high schooler in Moldova seeing you buy a Snickers at a corner bodega in New Jersey?

People get all worked up about the second one, but not about the first one.

And yet, the second one is idle-scrolling, like flipping through channels on TV. But the first one is someone completely unskilled for the job, being paid to actively monitor and judge you and your actions.

This is a weird bit of thinking, to be sure.

Humans are fascinating, man...


posted by kleinbl00: 67 days ago