zlacker

>>theamk+(OP)
I keep wanting to see the "Rainbows End" style experiment.

The common reaction to surveillance seems to be similar to how we diet. We allow/validate a little bit of the negative agent, but try to limit it and then discuss endlessly how to keep the amount tamped down.

One aspect explored/hypothesized in Rainbows End, is what happens when surveillance becomes so ubiquitous that it's not a privilege of the "haves". I wonder if rather than "deflocking", the counter point is to surround every civic building with a raft of flock cameras that are in the public domain.

Just thinking the contrarian thoughts.

>>travis+zh
This only works if society was okay with surveillance on private property. The wealthy can afford large tracts of private land and can afford to send people on their behalf to interact in public for many things. They can pay services to come to them as well.

>>plandi+wo
The "wealthy" can't control the FAA or obtain TFRs (look no further than the issues Elon and Taylor Swift have had with obfuscating their jet registration), so they're basically fucked when it comes to preventing aerial video observation over private property unless this "large tract of private land" exists within 14nm of Washington D.C. (these types of tracts aren't practically obtainable there) or falls within an existing flight-restricted zone (which aren't typically permanent.)