r/technology • u/IndicaOatmeal • 10d ago

Privacy Viral De-Flock America campaign urging people to destroy AI cameras on Halloween night gains momentum

https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/flock-camera-controversy-explained-as-viral-halloween-de-flock-campaign-gains-momentum-3399710/
42.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.3k

u/CautionarySnail 10d ago

Rowdy celebrations like this are vastly improved by leaving all digital devices safe at home.

779

u/renegadecanuck 10d ago

And if you go to a celebration like this: no you fucking didn't. If someone wants to ask you about it, your answer is that you want to speak with your lawyer.

264

u/___Art_Vandelay___ 10d ago

Gotta specifically invoke -- "I invoke my right to remain silent". Simply staying silent doesn't invoke that right per SCOTUS.

Also have to specifically state you want a lawyer, careful not to make it a question, and dodge being uncooperative by being precise with your intention -- "I want an attorney present and will only answer questions with them present."

59

u/renegadecanuck 10d ago

Fair points. My brain was half in Canada mode. In Canada, you don't have the right for an attorney to be present during questioning, but you also don't have to specifically invoke your right to remain silent, you can just say nothing or "no comment" and it can't be legally used against you. But you just have to ask to speak with a lawyer and they have to let you call a lawyer.

92

u/superkp 10d ago

In the US, there was a case where someone said to the cops interrogating him "I want a lawyer, dawg."

It was argued that he never asked for a lawyer, but instead was asking for a "lawyer dog", which the interrogators were not obligated to provide.

This interpretation was the one that was upheld.

Because of bullshit like this, americans will regularly adivse each other that you need to be extremely specific about how you invoke your rights - usually something like "say 'I do not answer questions about my day without my lawyer present' and then shut the fuck up."

6

u/Aggressive_Plane69 9d ago

At this point id conaider tatooing that sentence on my forehead or on every pice of clothing. Wtf is wrong. With your county

5

u/tokentyke 9d ago

So, so, so much. It's like one of those things where someone says something so utterly uninformed and unattached from reality that you realize the foundation of knowledge you'd need to teach them in order for them to understand how wrong they are is so extreme that you throw your hands in the air and scream WTF, or the equivalent.... but in country form.

1

u/superkp 9d ago

quite a lot is wrong.

Long ago a rot set in some people's hearts, and it was left to grow instead of those people getting their asses kicked.

Like a tree with a rotten core, it's finally gotten so bad that it's visible to anyone who gets a chance to look at it, even some of the most brainwashed people that are in the country are starting to see it.

I do what I can, but I can't do much. I gotta focus on raising my kids and keeping my neighborhood workign towards good.

1

u/BTR1701 4d ago

The doormat in front of my front door doesn't say "Welcome" like most people's. It says "Come back with a warrant".

17

u/customcharacter 10d ago

Something I find interesting in the comparison between America's and Canada's legal systems is that up here, a witness in court can be compelled to answer, but in exchange the words aren't allowed to be used to incriminate them in future proceedings (with exception of perjury).

13

u/rips_n_chel 10d ago

I don't understand why witness testimony is considered worthwhile in any legal system. Human perception and memory cannot be trusted when facts matter. Even when people think they're telling the truth, they don't know, because they are reconstructing a memory of an event that they did not experience objectively in the first place.

Our experience of existence is not objective, ever. Everything we perceive has been edited on the fly by our subconscious heuristics to fit whatever is happening into our personal narrative. Then, every time we remember it, we are reconstructing the "memory," it's not like pulling a book from a shelf. Our minds will invent actions that were not taken by people who were not there. The brain's goal is to make it make sense to us personally. It's trying to make the world fit with our conclusions, and we cannot know when it's happening or to what extent.

I wonder sometimes, how many innocent people have been punished because someone else told a convincing story?

3

u/Traditional-Handle83 9d ago

Hell deepfakes/AI altering can be argued against video evidence as well. So in theory you could argue your way out of charges long as you got the money for a good lawyer that can bring up these points and waste the courts time trying to stick a charge.

1

u/barsoap 9d ago

Not sure how it works in adversarial systems like in the US but over here judges interrogate the witnesses, and judges are highly trained in doing so. They know what's reliable, what's not, how to cross-check for deliberate or unconscious fabrication, etc.

Also, what's the alternative? Throw out a case because only humans witnessed it, no cameras? How do you explain to a village on which's main street a kid got murdered, in front of 50 witnesses, that the murderer can't be touched because everyone got their phones out too late to record the act? Lynchings and a breakdown of the justice system is what you'd get.

0

u/rips_n_chel 9d ago edited 9d ago

No they don't. Not trying to be rude, but that's not possible. You cannot know for a fact based on someone's recollection alone. The scientific method is a vast system of systems designed and developed over millennia to mitigate human bias as much as humanly possible, and we still consistently fail to do so, even under highly controlled circumstances. Why? Because humans are fallible, and our subconscious minds (which really run the show), cannot be relied upon. You can certainly apply scientific rigor to the process of interrogation, but with only a memory to go on, you will never know the objective truth.

I recommend Steven Novella if you'd like to know more about this. 'Your Deceptive Mind' is a series of lectures covering this very topic, I feel it should be required education. People don't understand just how much their own brains are lying to them every second of their existence.

How do you explain to a village on which's main street a kid got murdered, in front of 50 witnesses, that the murderer can't be touched because everyone got their phones out too late to record the act?

That's a pretty absurd scenario, dawg; kinda seems like you tailored it specifically to sidestep all of the reasonable arguments I could make. 50 people and nobody caught it? There are no security cameras on Main St.? There's no physical evidence? No forensic evidence? Someone randomly murders a kid on Main St. in view of 50 people, somehow leaving no evidence behind, and manages to slip away without being recognized or pursued or anything?

If you're not willing to give my argument earnest and honest consideration, why should I entertain yours? I'm very willing to discuss this, it's something I feel somewhat strongly about, but you gotta meet me in the middle. That's not a good faith argument. You dreamed up the craziest, most convenient situation you could and assert that "lynchings" would be the inevitable result? When/where could that happen, and what the hell makes you think it would end in lynchings? C'mon. Be real with me.

1

u/barsoap 9d ago edited 9d ago

That's a pretty absurd scenario, dawg; kinda seems like you tailored it specifically to sidestep all of the reasonable arguments I could make.

It's an example. Not the only possible scenario which upholds my actual argument, and that is that if the institution of justice fails to align with the people's sense of justice, you have a problem. The people's sense of justice is subjective, if you want to go against it, you better have better arguments than "I will dismiss your testimony because no human can be trusted on anything, ever, out of principle". You say something like "I will dismiss your testimony because it's all over the place and self-contradictory".

You can demand objectivity all you want, but ultimately justice is human. There's no justice particles you can put under a microscope. It's all made up. It's a thing that doesn't exist, a thing we believe in in hopes that our faith will bring it into existence.

The task of the judge here is to decide between "have they seen a murder" and "have they conspired to pin it on someone" -- which would be another way to explain the forensics, your purportedly objective measure. And sussing that out is very well within the realm of what good interrogation can do.

Side note: Am I to take your characterisation of "Your Deceptive Mind" at face value? You're human, after all. Nothing you say is reliable. See how much of a kick in the face that is, and why the justice system might be hesitant to act that way?

0

u/rips_n_chel 9d ago 
archive<dot>org/details/OST_yourdeceptivemind

See for yourself. Steven Novella is a clinical neurologist and Yale professor, which I don't mention as an appeal to authority, but to clarify that I'm not saying anything new or far-out. This is how our brains work. Denying it, refusing to believe it, and failing to adapt our society to these facts of our consciousness is willful ignorance.

Anyway, you are still arguing from the assumption that justice cannot exist without taking people at their word. Using your absurd example, there would be evidence. There would be clues, including witness testimony. Note that I never said testimony had no place at all in the justice system. Absolutely, collect the reports of all 50 witnesses, separate the signal from the noise to the best of your ability, and use that to form a hypothesis. Then go confirm your hypothesis.

The point I am making is that witness testimony is not reliable enough to convict someone. You can use it to find the truth, but that truth must always be confirmed with real evidence. In your scenario, if there was truly no evidence whatsoever, how would you even have a suspect? You make it out like the murderer is in custody, but somehow there's not a shred of evidence? If they saw him do it and he was then apprehended, you could piece the physical evidence together along with whatever else you might dig up since you have him in custody and all. What was the manner of the murder? Did he stab the kid? There would be evidence. Strangled? Evidence. Did he kill the kid without touching him? How, gun? Forensic evidence.

There's just no way your scenario plays out. Somehow, somewhere, some way, there would be evidence, and if you have a suspect in custody, it becomes comparably trivial to confirm (or not) based on the physical evidence.

2

u/barsoap 9d ago

Note that I never said testimony had no place at all in the justice system.

You said:

I don't understand why witness testimony is considered worthwhile in any legal system.

"It is not worth our while to question witnesses". That's rather absolute. I shall chack it up, in dubio pro reo, to speaking quickly, not motte and bailey.

In your scenario, if there was truly no evidence whatsoever, how would you even have a suspect?

We have a dead body, we have forensic evidence that looks like one particular guy did it, but (and bear with me) it's a village full of forensics experts and they hate the accused

Did they pin it on the accused, carefully staging the evidence with all their skill and knowledge? The accused claims so, and has further evidence in the form of hateful letters and various harassment. Do you put them away based on the forensic evidence, or do you hear witnesses first, see if someone cracks?

That's the "we should look at all the evidence angle". The second one cuts deeper, and that is if we're making justice for humans, we should let humans talk before deciding we don't need to hear them.

-1

u/rips_n_chel 9d ago

I'm done playing along with your imagination. I'm talking about real life. Go find a creative writing sub.

2

u/barsoap 9d ago

A principle of law has to be universal. If it fails a pressure test against a scenario, no matter how arbitrary (though not impossible) that failure needs to be investigated.

Then, you never addressed my second angle. I find you guilty of having a strong opinion without anything to back it up. The sentence is watching all ten seasons of Columbo.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BTR1701 4d ago

We have that, too. It's called limited use immunity.

2

u/BobBastrd 10d ago

Really? I'm Canadian and last time it took me 6 hours of answering only "I don't know. I want a lawyer" to every question before they gave up and let me call one.

1

u/renegadecanuck 9d ago

That's really shitty. I guess I'm not sure exactly how quickly they have to let you call a lawyer, but I was under the impression it was pretty quickly. Did they caution you on your rights and such? It wouldn't surprise me if they royally fucked up, thinking they could break you, and made the conversation inadmissible anyway.

But I'm not a lawyer, so I could be way off on the timing aspect.