Thread

1. Grombobulous · 1790375209 · focus · HN ↗

   I keep wondering if there’s some kind of positive correlation between prestige of an institution and level of immaturity and fragility of their employees.

   Look, I’m not trying to be pro-surveillance state or whatever, but in what universe is a handful of cameras (less than 10 per building) in a publicly accessible space on a private university unusual or alarming?

   I thought every university had this, but I guess I’m now learning that my university wasn’t prestigious enough to be exempted from reality.

   My high school also had cameras. Isn’t that rather typical?

   Keep in mind that pretty much 100% of schools this size have assaults take place every single year on school grounds, in a country where school shootings happen on a literal weekly basis.

   Speaking of the supposed cost waste of these cameras: I would be surprised the university can get reasonably priced insurance without them.

   Edit: this comment has picked up a lot of attention. I encourage those who are disagreeing with me to go directly to the university’s FAQ on the subject that is linked in the article. They directly state that this surveillance system isn’t new, it merely has some new cameras added to the existing system, audio isn’t recorded, facial recognition isn’t used, AI isn’t used, budget from other programs wasn’t sacrificed to add cameras, and data is stored inside an MIT data center. That’s one reason why I hold skepticism about the objectivity of the authors. I thought the authors were not very generous to the school’s willingness to clarify, and based on that FAQ a lot of accusations/assumptions in the article and discussion seem to be false.

   <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;evpt.mit.edu&#x2F;campus-security-cameras-frequently-asked-questions" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;evpt.mit.edu&#x2F;campus-security-cameras-frequently-aske...

   1. yosamino · 1790375872 · focus · HN ↗

      &gt; Look, I’m not trying to be pro-surveillance state or whatever, but

      ... but why do you then go on making all pro-surveillance state arguments ?

      1. Grombobulous · 1790375982 · focus · HN ↗

         Is MIT a state?

         1. kelnos · 1790376153 · focus · HN ↗

            MIT has a police force, so in the way that matters for this particular topic, yes, they are a state.

            Aside from that, the lines are very blurred these days, as the state often ends up gaining regular, easy access to systems such as this.

            (Regardless, it&#x27;s a bit in bad faith to bring up surveillance-state scenarios, and then, when called on it, claim that it doesn&#x27;t matter because it technically doesn&#x27;t apply to the organization at hand. Even though it does in the ways that matter.)

            1. Grombobulous · 1790377944 · focus · HN ↗

               That’s not bad faith, it’s just basic logic. MIT isn’t a state and is just installing security cameras on its private property.

               I do concede what you’re saying about its police force, and that’s a fair angle.

               1. rc5150 · 1790378854 · focus · HN ↗

                  Sorry to interrupt the pedantry about whether a specific entity counts as a state, I&#x27;d like to submit the notion that maybe the argument shouldn&#x27;t be &quot;is a state entity&quot; but rather &quot;is an entity that has some form of authority over my livelihood that is cornering me into a mode of constant surveillance which I do not consent to.&quot;

                  The obvious answer is to leave the organization, but ultimately one shouldn&#x27;t have to end their employment in order to be free of undue&#x2F;unjust AI surveillance.

                  1. kelnos · 1790379757 · focus · HN ↗

                     Yes, this. That&#x27;s part of my assertion that this is an argument in bad-faith: focusing on irrelevant details in order to derail an argument.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.