Apple (or somebody) would have to accumulate all the footage first and get it into a searchable database.
That's actually too predatory for a free country right there, without going any further. Which is Flock's problem, independent cameras have been around for decades, and often in public, without the general public resisting their ubiquity.
Everything else rolls downhill from there. Who knows what different parties would do with the data? That's a whole 'nother can of worms.
So the cameras themselves are not the most un-American component, it's the network and the way it's handled that makes so many people feel like preserving what remaining privacy there is means more to them than tracking every single person's movements all the time everywhere.
All kinds of people have instinctively recognized that a total surveillance system is like a lot of other things, the system itself needs to be more predatory by nature than the "less-organized" scofflaws and actual criminal predators who are the targets, in order gain overwhelming odds on capturing them all. Like the old saying goes it takes a thief to catch a thief.
IOW when you treat everybody as guilty until proven innocent, you get a lot more criminals that way.
But that's just not the American way, so patriotic Americans balk.
In so many ways it helps to focus more deeply on the fundamentals.
For one thing, in the 1970's lots of true "baby boomers" were still too young to vote.
Maybe what you mean is old folks in general, they were the ones in California who were desperate enough to support the proposition which might be able to save their homes.
They should know, lots of them had been through The Great Depression, and were so much older than boomers they could be their grandparents, well they actually were if you do the math.
And they did the math, getting by just by the skin of their teeth while those just a little bit older who had been on a fixed income earlier had already been taxed out beyond recovery before the proposition.
They already ate the pain, I guess it's difficult to remember how up-front it was if you never spent that many years among Depression survivors.
Nobody ever wanted a depression again, and losing your home through no fault of your own was one of the most visible outcomes that ordinary people could do something about before it got out of hand.
This was supposed to be big, and it is bigger than ever, this is by design.
The problem comes from trying to work against it when the entire economic system surrounding "real estate" was supposed to evolve by now to where nobody pays more tax by now than the most proposition-protected properties.
The idea was for it not to end up making any difference as the years went by, nothing could be more fair than that.
The pearl-clutching comes from the failure of following generations to evolve away from taxing properties or wealth, with all levies eventually falling exclusively onto commerce instead so that only those who are actively making big transactions at the time are logically expected to be able to afford anything at all at the time.
Otherwise things are going to stay as medieval as they can, and the torture will continue until the attitude improves.
Did you mean "making AI cloning illegal would be meaningingless"?
That would be about the opposite of the way Plummer was shocked:
>"AI Cloning should be illegal"
I also say au contraire, instead the things about copyright and software that make people feel this way are what needs to be changed.
And never should have been allowed to stand in the first place. Otherwise I estimate we would have had AI decades earlier. And by now AI would be doing something much more worthwhile than cloning software that should have been open-source since computers got personal. I really really wanted AI since the early 1980's but that was way before Microsoft took over home & office "machines", plus wealth inequality skyrocketed, which things like that now make me wonder how much more crushing an unfortunate event could amount to at scales so far beyond compare.
It would have probably been better to have started earlier when there was less computational disparity between the most high-dollar datacenter versus one person's home or office computer. Now the force is so great that personal computers are yielding to overwhelming pressure to become less powerful, plus way less powerful than they would have been per dollar by now if things would have gone better.
For many definitions of "better."
And that's hardware, you want me to worry about software?
Naturally I have undying respect for Plummer's outstanding programming ability regardless, as well as Bill Gates.
However if Gates had not put in undying persuasive effort at the very beginning, software would not have gained the legal status akin to Disney where they were always bent on having nobody outlive their mainly-fictional stories no matter how young the enthusiast starts out.
With long-term hindsight it looks like things would be very different now, but Gates and Plummer would still have done fine either way.
Microsoft would have been way different too, much better I would imagine, I know there are tonnes of brilliant engineers still there plus new ones coming in, and I get the idea that their ability to flourish is hampered worse than it would be under many alternative structures.
The demographic that seeks caffeine and those responding to sugar is not exactly the same, but there sure is lots of overlap.
Either way wouldn't the greatest satisfaction of a habit-forming desire come from those who are having a little metabolic shortage at the time for one reason or another?
Starbucks has always been completely dependent on habit-forming behavior in response to significantly powerful substances.
That's actually too predatory for a free country right there, without going any further. Which is Flock's problem, independent cameras have been around for decades, and often in public, without the general public resisting their ubiquity.
Everything else rolls downhill from there. Who knows what different parties would do with the data? That's a whole 'nother can of worms.
So the cameras themselves are not the most un-American component, it's the network and the way it's handled that makes so many people feel like preserving what remaining privacy there is means more to them than tracking every single person's movements all the time everywhere.
All kinds of people have instinctively recognized that a total surveillance system is like a lot of other things, the system itself needs to be more predatory by nature than the "less-organized" scofflaws and actual criminal predators who are the targets, in order gain overwhelming odds on capturing them all. Like the old saying goes it takes a thief to catch a thief.
IOW when you treat everybody as guilty until proven innocent, you get a lot more criminals that way.
But that's just not the American way, so patriotic Americans balk.
reply