Hacker News Reader

Comment by golergka | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand why would a person have a right to see something and remember it, but not record it.

(Using this recording for various purposes is a while different issue though).

There's an objective asymmetry to it. The person who has a flawless recording of what happened has options that the person who has a lossy recording of what happened (i.e. the one in their head) does not have. If everyone is on the same playing field (as in, neither have a recording or both have it) then it seems to me the objection is greatly lessened—it's when one party records and the other party doesn't have access to it that there's some sense of unfairness.

Great. Let's break this asymmetry by making AR devices ubiquitous and giving most people those recordings. Would also help with police problems in many countries.

That definitely seems like a way to address at least this one part of what seems to bother people about omnipresent technological observation of everyone everywhere all the time, yes. :)

Surveillance has already made being in public spaces unpleasant enough to prevent me from taking part in many things that I would otherwise enjoy taking part in.

More of it just makes my world smaller and smaller.

If there was a way to be sure it would stay only ever being viewed by that person, sure. For now, I think people shouldn't have the risk that it gets seen by others forced upon them.

Your parenthetical point IS the point. I can see people in a washroom at the urinals but there's obvious reasons I can't record it.

>I don't understand why would a person have a right to see something and remember it, but not record it

Perhaps because you miss the notion of quantitative and qualitative difference.

My concern isn’t that I’ll be seen by one person, but that the recording will be shared with innumerable others.

i suppose for the same reason you cannot prohibit breathing, it is a biological fact to be considered when drafting regulations. rules without being able to enforce them would show the governing body as weak and clueless, undermining its authority. a rather big no-no for most "powers". rest assured when more people wear AR-type glasses they sure as hell will inject "rules" in the software to control/limit what you see. to protect of course

I've kind of given up on expecting most people to be rational on emotionally charged subjects. Most people don't think things through, and the more intense the emotion involved the less likely there's any chance of reasoning with them.

Highly emotionally charged attitudes commonly held in society may change, but it'll probably take generations to do so.

People have kind of figured out that an appearance of calm, rationalism may also conceal extremely strong feelings.

One has to have an open mind. It's not inherently more rational to calmly accept all social changes brought on by technology.

If everyone could just calmly discuss divisive topics instead of freaking out or resorting to violence, the world would be a much better place.

"You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- (who knows? This quote is attributed to lots of people)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com