To find the guy who spits, you can just rewind the tape.
I certainly could pay any fine that would be assessed, because that fine would be assessed zero times.
If you’re in a living situation where neighbors are regularly spitting in the common areas, I can understand the appeal of a system that would bring that to an end.
But ya, peeing college students shouldn’t registered as sex offenders, urinating on a tree when there are no open bathrooms around, even the cops understand that kind of thing happens sometimes.
I wouldn't put too much faith on human judgement of criminality. I'd put even less faith in corporate views of similar matters. Even less in machine learning models. And I'd put the very least in corporate run mass surveillance fed machine learning models.
It’s less “ok” to people if you say “A public venue is banning an individual because she works for a company our company dislikes.”
If you’re in this space at all, you should be concerned about this. If you live in a major area, hundreds of locations are running LPR on your car or have cameras capable of facial recognition. As more entities start exchanging that data, your movements are available to anyone willing to pay.
Once you open the door to this, it’s easy to go awful things in the name of quality of life. Perhaps your landlord doesn’t like your ethnicity or religion, won’t rent to folks who’ve spent time in certain places, for example.
At least in the US, this type of discrimination is illegal.
How many groups in tech are a single ethnicity or religion managed by that same ethnicity or religion? I bet the number isn't small.
ah the "if you have nothing to hide" approach.
people that occupy this perspective never withstand the level of scrutiny they espouse - i am 100% certain that if i observed you for a ~1 week i would find punishable offenses. and then you would wilt and say "well i didn't mean those things". yes that's the point - systems like this are aimed at a particular category of offenses and blind to another.
So, yes, EVERY little thing.
Spitting in public areas is bad, algorithmically threatening blind people with eviction for getting help is, in my view, an order of magnitude worse.
Your point about not experiencing these systems may be valid for the poster, but certainly not for myself. I do acknowledge that I don't speak for everyone though.
I personally, having dealt with the utter bullshit of being poor and in social housing (which isn't even a top 5 problem I have had to deal with), would prefer the cameras with AI powered horseshit over dealing with idiots spewing their spit and other bodily fluids all over public areas of the social housing. You are free to disagree. If you have not actually lived in these places (specifically the very violent ones), then you should stop referring to us as victims. It doesn't help.
Do you think that maybe, there’s a middle ground where poor disabled people don’t get hassled, but people who do impact the quality of life do get punished appropriately. My guess is that the spitter was a known problem resident, and this was used as an excuse or the final straw to get him out. As bad as spitting is, I wouldn’t want someone to lose their housing for a single incident like this.
What wasn’t mentioned, was how much this ai costs in comparison to how much it might cost to just review the footage when an actual problem is caused.
It isn’t a case of ai surveillance or nothing. The whole issue comes down to under resourced, or plain incompetent management. This is just an expensive bandaid.
You are so well damn so sure of that. Idiot.
You say you walk at 1AM. Why? Maybe your pattern of walks aligns with when some Nextdoor.com Karen thinks there’s a pervert lurking around scaring her cats.
Well hey good news, the cameras are automated now and they know all the crimes.
--Calvin Coolidge