A tsunami of light... In a cameras - everywhere culture, science fiction becomes reality, The Los Angeles Times ran an excellent run-down on this year’s
status of camera and surveillance tech, showing how the trend is accelerating.
Oh... and this front page article features yours truly, in the first sentence
and last...
...and on radio, I was a panelist about the trend of turning the cameras back on the
police. The latest? The ACLU offers a new cell phone app. One tap and your video-phone turns on while uploading the event
directly to YouTube, in case the device itself gets “damaged”. In Turning the Cameras Back on Police, I discussed this on NPR with an ACLU representative… along with a representative
of the Los Angeles County police officers’ union and an organizer for Black Lives
Matter.
Of course, all this media comes after 25 years predicting and opining on this inevitable trend. With this posting -- and this one -- among the most recent examples.
== Are some folks starting to get it? ==
As that L.A. lieutenant typifies, the mature pros in our constabularies are already ahead of the curve, emphasizing that the 2013 rulings are fully accepted. "Citizens have a perfect right to record us, so long as they stand back and do not interfere." Ah, but this will be a process (as I described in EARTH and The Transparent Society.) A process in which good cops will learn how to cull their own ranks of thugs...
... while the rest of us learn the subtleties of citizen power. Take this article:
What to say when the police tell you to stop filming them.
'First of all, they shouldn’t ask! “As a basic principle, we can’t tell you to stop recording,” says Delroy Burton, chairman of D.C.’s metropolitan police union. “If you’re standing across the street videotaping, and I’m in a public place, carrying out my public functions, [then] I’m subject to recording, and there’s nothing legally the police officer can do to stop you from recording.”…
Yet still some officers do. Last week, an amateur video appeared to show a U.S. Marshal confiscating and destroying a woman’s camera as she filmed him.'
'Most officers, says Sanchez, now know that bystanders have a legal right to film police. Now, instead of hearing assertions that they can’t record at all, he says that Copwatch volunteers are accused of interfering with police activity. “What we hear is, you can’t film here, you need to back up,” he told me. At which point, says Sanchez, the volunteer complies—by taking one step back.'
Me? Mr. Transparency is much less
confrontational, when it comes to the small details. Hey, my aim is not to be an asshole, but to assert citizen oversight. I would instead say:
“Out of respectful citizenship, officer, I am taking five steps backward. Any further will impede my right – as your employer – to supervise you. But I am willing to listen, if you explain why you need even more space than that. Oh, and meanwhile this interaction is uploading live.”
So, what if the fellow seems angrily about to lose it, and do something regrettable? Then I would speak loudly:
“Are you getting this Larry? Well keep your camera aimed at me while staying out of sight! We’ll see what this officer with badge number 68643 is about to do.”
Whether or not “Larry” exists, by now they are starting to grasp this. That it is not the camera you see that will ultimately hold you accountable.
It's the one you don't see....
== And more on cop cams ==
... while the rest of us learn the subtleties of citizen power. Take this article:
What to say when the police tell you to stop filming them.'First of all, they shouldn’t ask! “As a basic principle, we can’t tell you to stop recording,” says Delroy Burton, chairman of D.C.’s metropolitan police union. “If you’re standing across the street videotaping, and I’m in a public place, carrying out my public functions, [then] I’m subject to recording, and there’s nothing legally the police officer can do to stop you from recording.”…
Yet still some officers do. Last week, an amateur video appeared to show a U.S. Marshal confiscating and destroying a woman’s camera as she filmed him.'
'Most officers, says Sanchez, now know that bystanders have a legal right to film police. Now, instead of hearing assertions that they can’t record at all, he says that Copwatch volunteers are accused of interfering with police activity. “What we hear is, you can’t film here, you need to back up,” he told me. At which point, says Sanchez, the volunteer complies—by taking one step back.'
Me? Mr. Transparency is much less
confrontational, when it comes to the small details. Hey, my aim is not to be an asshole, but to assert citizen oversight. I would instead say: “Out of respectful citizenship, officer, I am taking five steps backward. Any further will impede my right – as your employer – to supervise you. But I am willing to listen, if you explain why you need even more space than that. Oh, and meanwhile this interaction is uploading live.”
So, what if the fellow seems angrily about to lose it, and do something regrettable? Then I would speak loudly:
“Are you getting this Larry? Well keep your camera aimed at me while staying out of sight! We’ll see what this officer with badge number 68643 is about to do.”
Whether or not “Larry” exists, by now they are starting to grasp this. That it is not the camera you see that will ultimately hold you accountable.
It's the one you don't see....
== And more on cop cams ==
Now this article from Gizmodo - How Police Body Cameras Were Designed to Get Cops Off the Hook -- yet again provides a feast of
in-depth information about the cop-cam trend... while the author maintains the
most amazing obduracy and inability to step back or ask even the simplest
question. Like "what might be next?"
Not one year ahead, did he
look, nor even try to extrapolate. Or ask "What might happen when
the plummeting price of body cams and instant cloud storage, puts these
tools onto the lapels of every ghetto youth?"Picture every kid, every harassed pedestrian or driver, with a little box and winking red light, and every frame going straight to online storage. Are you actually... actually telling us that won't change things?
(Note: I was talking this over with design guru Don Norman, and we realized that there are two innovations badly needed, right now, beyond the ACLU's instant-upload app. In the SHORT term we have to come up with some kind of velco or hanging lanyard thing that will let ghetto youths get out of their car with their cell phones hanging free from their necks... so that they can raise their hands open and bare! Hands free is absolutely essential and you know why. These innovations are needed right now, this very moment... plus some millionaire to fund a very rapid deployment of thousands of cheap, hanging-phone-holders.
(Over the longer run, of course, we need small, blue-tooth detachable cams that any person can leave as a dash cam, but snatch up and pin to his lapel, before getting out of the car... and the very act of pinning it sets the upload going. Again, to complete the process, and NOT in order to be offensive to the majority of decent men and women who heroically patrol our streets. No aspersions, just moving on to complete this transition to a world of accountability and light.)I portrayed this happening around the year 2020, in my novel EARTH. In my nonfiction book, The Transparent Society, there is a section describing exactly this transformation, as citizens become empowered with both the right to look-back at authority and the tools to enable it.
No, getting back to the detailed and yet myopic Gizmodo piece, the issue here is one of journalism. How on Earth does a fellow who
cannot even squint at how the simplest tech trends might affect tomorrow
get to opine and tell us what's going on?
== Bright fools ==
How Transparency Will Change the World: In a pair of TED-style talks, Daniel Dennett, the Tufts University philosopher and cognitive scientist, and Deb Roy, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor and Twitter’s chief media scientist, talk about the spread of digital technology and the advent of social media has made it much more difficult to keep secrets. This new transparency will profoundly influence the evolution of our institutions, the authors argue. “When these organizations suddenly find themselves exposed to daylight, they quickly discover that they can no longer rely on old methods; they must respond to the new transparency or go extinct,” they write.
Dennett’s talk at a skeptic’s conference in 2014 is “Can churches survive the new transparency?” Starts rather interesting, by comparing our new transparent society to the sudden transition that life on Earth underwent, when (according to one theory) the oceans suddenly became clear or transparent. “Transform and adapt to a new, transparent society, or die,” he tells all organizations. Alas, though, the second half of his talk slows down and devolves into another atheism rant, much too akin to the structured belief systems that he (with some good reason) disdains.
Alas, as we saw in an earlier blog, most of the punditsphere is filled with bright fools yammering about Big Brother’s eyes, without offering a single suggestion what we might do to effectively hide from them. Meanwhile ignoring the truly important matter, Big Brother's hands.
== Transparency blips ==
An ex-girlfriend of the co-pilot who deliberately crashed a Germanwings plane into the alps, killing all 150 on board, has told how he vowed to "do something" history would remember him by. Creepy … and totally to be expected. Indeed. I told you all to expect more and more guys like this. Call it the Erastratos Syndrome.” See my longstanding proposal for how to deal with it: Names of Infamy: Deny Killers the Notoriety they seek.
More and more eyes are looking down on our planet: As both satellites and UAVs grow cheaper, smaller, and more ubiquitous, researchers and agencies such as SkyTruth and Global Fishing Watch are using increasingly pervasive
sky images to catch cheaters and destroyers, tracking down environmental violations ranging from oil spills to wetland destruction, from illegal landfills to fracking to illicit fishing activity. Skytruth's motto: If you can see it, you can change it....
An ex-girlfriend of the co-pilot who deliberately crashed a Germanwings plane into the alps, killing all 150 on board, has told how he vowed to "do something" history would remember him by. Creepy … and totally to be expected. Indeed. I told you all to expect more and more guys like this. Call it the Erastratos Syndrome.” See my longstanding proposal for how to deal with it: Names of Infamy: Deny Killers the Notoriety they seek.
Twitter trolls getting their come-uppance when a vigorous (and empowered) dad hunts them down and names them? Sure, it's straight from The Transparent Society, but even earlier Vernor Vinge's story "True Names." In fact this is a good thing. We need a society that forgives (in wary stages) youthful indiscretions. But these guys have shown us they are the sorts of fellows who might be bullies, if not held accountable. Most of us aren't. We deserve better lifelong credibility than you do, putz. And accountability will flow.
Ah justice... Man who made thousands posting women's stolen nudes goes after news sites that posted pictures of him.
More and more eyes are looking down on our planet: As both satellites and UAVs grow cheaper, smaller, and more ubiquitous, researchers and agencies such as SkyTruth and Global Fishing Watch are using increasingly pervasive
sky images to catch cheaters and destroyers, tracking down environmental violations ranging from oil spills to wetland destruction, from illegal landfills to fracking to illicit fishing activity. Skytruth's motto: If you can see it, you can change it....
It all begins with shining light into the shadows.
Alas, the deepest shadows might bring about our worst nightmares. The money now spent on developing “artificial intelligence” or AI for finance, equities or commodities trading etc vastly exceeds the AI research budgets at the top 100 universities, combined. And nearly all of it is done in secret, to develop programs whose ferocious drives are predatory, parasitical and all-devouring insatiable.
That’s some combination! As I have said repeatedly, “Skynet” won’t come out of the military. It will come out of the portions of our economy that win every political battle and every tax break. Indeed, what better clue that our AI overlords have already… come awake?
Alas, the deepest shadows might bring about our worst nightmares. The money now spent on developing “artificial intelligence” or AI for finance, equities or commodities trading etc vastly exceeds the AI research budgets at the top 100 universities, combined. And nearly all of it is done in secret, to develop programs whose ferocious drives are predatory, parasitical and all-devouring insatiable.
That’s some combination! As I have said repeatedly, “Skynet” won’t come out of the military. It will come out of the portions of our economy that win every political battle and every tax break. Indeed, what better clue that our AI overlords have already… come awake?
== Finally...politics ==
"A Florida statute
governing the preservation of public records requires elected officials,
including the governor, to turn over records pertaining to official business
“at the expiration of his or her term of office.”
Let's just take this law,
in principle, and: (1) extend it to the period during term of office, and (2)
to any communications not with close family members, and (3) require that such
official uses only communications devices publicly certified to be reliably be
recording all.
Oh, but an interesting
aside: it took Jeb Bush 7 years to comply fully with a Florida law requiring him to turn over his emails. So much for yer dubble standard, boys.
