Tracking People's Behavior with Algorithms (Smart CCTV)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the ethical implications and effectiveness of advanced surveillance technologies, particularly the "Samurai" system designed to identify suspicious behavior. Concerns are raised about the potential for false positives, as the system may misinterpret normal behavior as suspicious, leading to unwarranted scrutiny of innocent individuals. Participants express unease about the increasing normalization of intrusive monitoring in society, particularly in Britain, which is noted for its extensive use of surveillance. The conversation highlights the balance between security and personal freedoms, questioning whether reliance on such systems could create a false sense of security and potentially lead to government overreach. The fear is that as these technologies become more integrated into daily life, they could pave the way for greater surveillance and loss of privacy, especially in times of societal unrest. Overall, the discourse reflects a tension between the desire for safety and the preservation of civil liberties.
Galteeth
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You know I don't mind so much if my city streets had cameras deployed. I think it's an O.K. idea actually. As far as I know the system has worked out well for the streets it covers in Britain.

I'm not exactly sure how this "Samurai" system would benefit anybody without some sort of high-leveled AI system that could replace human intelligence on the situation. It would appear to me that many false-positives would be relayed just by people acting sketchy in regular life. And it would probably also not be able to pick up all that many people who may commit acts of violence just based on how they are walking or through their actions.

What I would be most afraid of is people thinking that the system is good enough to be RELIED upon to catch these people. It would in my opinion create a more slack enviroment; that is definitely not good for security of an area suchas an airport or subway system.
 
Sorry! said:
You know I don't mind so much if my city streets had cameras deployed. I think it's an O.K. idea actually. As far as I know the system has worked out well for the streets it covers in Britain.

I'm not exactly sure how this "Samurai" system would benefit anybody without some sort of high-leveled AI system that could replace human intelligence on the situation. It would appear to me that many false-positives would be relayed just by people acting sketchy in regular life. And it would probably also not be able to pick up all that many people who may commit acts of violence just based on how they are walking or through their actions.

What I would be most afraid of is people thinking that the system is good enough to be RELIED upon to catch these people. It would in my opinion create a more slack enviroment; that is definitely not good for security of an area suchas an airport or subway system.

In the article it sounds like the idea is to develop some sort of rudimentay AI. When it comes to these types of measures, while one in isolation is not necessarily cause for alarm, the combination of multiple tracks (as in Britian, where you have acoustic weapons being used to keep teenagers from loitering, CCTV on every street, and the increased use of RFID) a cultural shift takes place where people gradually begin to accept more and more intrusive monitoring as the norm. This may not be an issue yet, but it certainly sows the seeds for trouble. What happens after these systems are implemented and the relative peace and prosperity of Britian are disrupted? (as for a hypothetical example, as the result of climate change). It is much easier to give a government power then it is to roll it back.

As far as your conclusion, I agree. It seems like any terrorist worth their salt would know enough not to act overtly suspicious anyway. It seems far more likely the result will be the harassment of easier targets by lower level officials (as is often the case here with TSA or the police) then the apprehension of truly dangerous people.
 
Galteeth said:
It is much easier to give a government power then it is to roll it back.
It is much better to compromise and have a say in the inevitable than to fight it and have no say when it arrives. This sort of technology is coming, it will happen, and the only question is whether or not the people on the side of your rights will have any say in how it is implemented and controlled to better preserve your rights. As you say, once government seizes its power it will not let it go easily.

Galteeth said:
As far as your conclusion, I agree. It seems like any terrorist worth their salt would know enough not to act overtly suspicious anyway. It seems far more likely the result will be the harassment of easier targets by lower level officials (as is often the case here with TSA or the police) then the apprehension of truly dangerous people.
I think that most bombers (especially suicide bombers) are newbies and likely to be more nervous. Besides, I doubt that it is intended solely for terrorist activity much like I doubt that my country's NSA data mining project is solely intended to target terrorists.
 
Galteeth said:
I wasn't suggesting that CCTV was never useful in fighting crime. The question of course is the classic one of the balance between security from the threat posed by individuals and security from the threat posed by organized government.

What would be the least undesirable option?
accepting:
- the threat posed by individuals
- or, the threat posed by organized government

In China it is different situation but I don't know how real the second threat can be in the case of the Western nations ...
This may not be an issue yet, but it certainly sows the seeds for trouble. What happens after these systems are implemented and the relative peace and prosperity of Britian are disrupted? (as for a hypothetical example, as the result of climate change). It is much easier to give a government power then it is to roll it back.

I see that you agreed that the threat from organized government is not real as for now. I think you are ignoring the push for transparency in the governments and increased scrutiny of the government activities by the media. Thus, I disagree with your conclusion about the future.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

News Post-Scientific Technocratic Methodologies
Replies
12
Views
3K
Why do so many people hate science?
Replies
28
Views
11K
Thoughts on A.I. and Self-Preservation
Replies
1
Views
2K
Programs Environmental Solutions and Semiconductors: Research Interests and Career Goals
Replies
2
Views
2K
Programs Math minor, double major, and elective classes advice
Replies
4
Views
3K
The Scientist as Hero - or not
Replies
1
Views
3K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 226)
Replies
7
Views
3K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 226)
Replies
7
Views
4K
A sci-fi trilogy background. real science advice needed PLEASE
Replies
8
Views
5K
BRS: PKI Cryptosystems for SA/Ms: A Tutorial
Replies
13
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top