I think so, but it is a loosely held opinion at this point. Fundamentally, I think it is a huge, asymmetric power grab by Flock and local police to install these systems. It only takes one officer looking up their local politician and finding them doing something that could even look like a bad deed (or to fake it in the era of AI videogen...) to enable blackmail and personal/professional gain.
If they're going to exist, it may be better for that to be spread among the public than to be left in the hands of the few.
At first I thought you were defending flock. Seems clear the cameras make it harder to commit crimes and easier to go after the offenders, despite all the side effects most people are upset about here.
How does a camera make it harder to commit a crime? If I bash your skull in on camera, did the camera make that more difficult? Would your family be less aggrieved?
This is pretty naive. What happens when you develop and extend such a system in a way that it can track who you interact with? What about social credit scores? You might go out to a social event with a very distinguished social credit score of 820 and get knocked down to 69 just because you were in proximity to Bob and Alice, who happen to be on some blacklists for their work in cryptography.
What you're staring at is the gateway tech that brings in a dystopian society. At first stuff like this is fairly benign, but slowly over time it ramps up into truly awful outcomes.
I mean public venues in the US use this stuff to kick out people that they don't like, or that work for firms that have been involved in lawsuits. That is no different than the start of a social credit score and it's happening already.
These memos are always basically admissions of their own incompetence. If you distrust your employees this much and have created a culture where people aren't getting their work done without it being noticed, that's on you.
> A lot of the anti WFH wave comes from companies discovering that they actually can't trust some employees to do much work from home.
Personally, I think a lot of the anti WFH types thrive in an office environment because either charitably, they get energy from being around people and work better, or less charitably, it helps them build their careers because they're great at being noticed in that environment.
In the charitable case, that's great for them, but could be harmful to WFH types, who thrive when they can work remotely and their focus times click more easily (for various reasons).
In the less charitable case, (which I suspect is a lot of people who are passionately anti-WFH), well, this needs no real explanation. They're just being selfish for their own career.
I'm convincing myself that the root of all evils^H^H^H^H^Hpoor thinking and argumentation generally arises due to not thinking further and more critically. Those clichés are just some nicely packaged, ready-made products to induce this.
Tech has always been like that. Ever install anything in Windows in the 90s? Or have extension conflicts on System 7? The change is tech has taken over more space
Exactly. Occasionally a really good well designed reliable product comes along. But then over time time it gets crappified. The only exception seems to be some open source software.
reply