[extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette

Sat Apr 10 20:45:02 UTC 2004

And since the wetware is less than 100% efficient,  the archive would make an excellent backup to see or remember that last little extra  detail you seem to not be sure of.

Think of your day to day memory as the index registry and the data cache as your
full function "total recall" memory.  Perhaps even your  auto agent could do a little behind the scenes linking  and outside data  provisioning to prepare for your future
browsing enjoyment.

In effect your brain would be more efficent because the higher functions would be able to  selectively avoid the information overload of 24/7/365/ad-infinitum  total recall.

Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 03:47:51PM -0500, duggerj1 at charter.net wrote:
>
> > I feel happy to fall on the side of the okay <grin>. What if use this at work to capture criticism or compliments to take back to the office? For example, I work on flight simulators and sometime pilots claim something looks false or realistic. This might trun into part of the official records of the job, and I don't know if this quite matches what you meant.
>
> It depends on what you do is recognizable as such (how can people tell you're
> capturing? Optical apertures are tiny these days). Is there a policy on
> gargoyling? Are you in violation, and will they pounce on you while in the
> process (streaming crypted stuff offsite) or will they sue your pants off for it
> afterwards, once they've figured out you captured secrets, and made them
> public? Inadvertedly, or with malice aforethought, and will it make a
> difference? Cameras are already offlimits in many places, whether government,
> corporate, or private (lavatories and locker rooms e.g.).
>
> > That seems a little dispropotionate. How about just kicking me out? This implies part of the etiquette for wearable cameras includes: don't conceal them, and turn them off if anyone objects. What sort of verification could you reasonably expect?
>
> It's easy to ask people to stop capturing in private, or just disrobe the
> gear, or just suggest to leave the premises (hopefully, not at gunpoint).
>
> > What if you had one of these that you couldn't turn off? Imagine one of these mounted on a firearm such that it showed both the wielder and the aimpoint, and that pulling th trigger recorded both views. How might such a thing affect the gun control debate? Should armed civil servants have such things? Should casino workers? Should everyone?
>
> Should be interesting evidence, if tamper-proofed. If it's personally
> encrypted, failure to yield the key would be interpreted as intent to hide
> evidence.
>
> --
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
> http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Part 1.1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat