I find it alarming that to “protect” women, men have to be surveilled secretly in all public places. This is way beyond dystopian.
AI and remote security personnel get to decide if someone is “a predator” and take 'em down preemptively if they look suspicious.
What could possibly go wrong?
The idea is, on that deserted railway platform, the lasers would spot the unnecessarily close choice of seat, registering it as unusual and a potential threat. Security teams would then be alerted and could either direct CCTV for a closer look or send staff in person if needed.
Me when I get arrested for sitting down in public. This is definitely not going to drive young men towards figures like andrew tate
Do you remember the social media panic over ‘man spreading’ or whatever? This whole thesis that men sit with their legs spread in public spaces to specifically deny women a place to sit?
It was so wild. And everyone ate it up. And if you pointed out how many women dump their bags on seats and take up 2-3 extra seats… you were a misogynist attacking hard working women who were just trying to bring their shopping home.
It can’t just be that people who take up extra space are the jerks.
Yep. Same with man vs bear discourse. It’s all scissor statements, and people eat it the fuck up because we all need an enemy
Thanks for the link. I never heard that term before. Super interesting. But very common rhetorical device these days.
that was the only video that women ever appeared in to talk about that I’m fairly certain, or maybe I’m thinking about the woman that’s talking about gaming and male gaming fantasies.
yeah sorry about that I was thinking about this woman
deleted by creator
Surely a society that has shown little care for women’s safety would never pretend to care about women’s safety to justify pushing their surveillance state forward.
Except those most likely to victimize women LOVE projection and taking undeserved credit
Her company does work for the defense industry. There’s no way this technology will be misused for spying and surveillance.
It always starts with the excuse of terrorism, protect the children,etc…Wow - I didn’t even know about that part. That pretty much clinches it, doesn’t it?
Vetting, checking sources etc… is the first thing I do.
Especially when alarm bells go off.
first one BBC, second one tracking tech.
Everyone should do it, would prevent a lot of misinformed opinions.I checked out the link, and noticed that the “we use cookies” obscuring pop-up does not disappear when one chooses to not accept “unnecessary” cookies. I guess we just have to power through the 20% screen loss unless we accept those cookies. Hard pass.
I have a 5% screen loss only.
Didn’t even need to decline cookies to read it.Oh, yeah, that was my point, screen loss.
I didn’t mean to point out the disrespect and clear statement that we either agree or have to suffer the annoyance of the equivalent of someone standing in front of us at a baseball game repeatedly asking if we would like to buy a hotdog.
Why should we complain? We can still see the game around him, after all.
Insane the sort of shit people propose. At this rate they’ll ask to install cameras in our homes to “detect domestic violence events” or to detect “terrorist activities”
Hah! They don’t have to. Many have “assistants” listening constantly, door cameras linked to central surveillance hubs, security cameras also linked to those hubs. It’s too late for most people - they took the bait. Hell, even the televisions record audio and send it back to the hub, and I’ve heard now that cameras are the new rage for them so we can “control the TV with motion”. Yeah, most are already cooked. I had to replace my old LG, bought a new one. I didn’t give it access to the internet. Even so, who knows if it’s still secretly doing it? And then there are our phones in which they swear they’re not tracking us. Yet, plenty of proof they are in fact recording our conversations and tracking our locations.
What the fuck‽
Edit: this was meant as a firm and horrified disagreement as a feminist, not as actual confusion or surprise. The UK has been finding whatever justification they can pull out of their ass to increase surveillance and control
key premise of identify politics is that you are guilty of the sins of the group you belong to.
in this case, if you are a man, you are guilty of the crime of potentially raping women.
You are going to see al to more of this kind of crap, from ‘progressive’ people in the next decade.
Almost all assaults are done by people the victim knows, in private. This does nothing to prevent that.
There is absolutely no clarity on how this laser based system monitors people on the ground. Is it like a radar? How does the system determine from a laser that the target is a woman, man or non binary?
More needs to be done to protect women but mass surveillance with iffy claims about privacy ain’t the way
It seeds nanoparticles at the quantum level to generate a molecular positronic array. Think of it like putting too much air into a balloon. There will be no more technical questions.
absolutely no clarity on how this laser based system monitors people on the ground
Re: Theranos
It’s Elizabeth Holmes bullshit all over again lol
Rosie Richardson is working to develop a technology to help keep women and girls safe in public spaces
Not another Elizabeth Holmes clone, ffs.
Just stop with the black turtleneck She-E-O bullshit. What a maroon you’d have to be to invest in this
She does have the empty eyes of a soulless narcissist.
A man arrives and sits right beside her, making her feel uncomfortable and unsafe.
It’s time to patent public bench with gender taser.
[PENIS DETECTED]
bzzzzzap!
Pretty transphobic!
Their wet dream is a pay to use bench that has pointy spikes keeping you from sitting down until you pay, and it also verifies your identity by scanning your face or government issue ID so it knows what gender you are regardless of your genital status or if you are homeless so it can deny you even after paying.
But the system she is developing does not use cameras and, instead, monitors crowds as anonymous dots on a map. Only when it spots a potential issue are CCTV cameras directed on the individuals, or security personnel sent to the scene.
“Our aim there is to respect public privacy - so really understand that people don’t want to be continually monitored when there’s no need to be - but also make spaces safe,” she says. The process has undergone simulated trials and will soon move to tests in real-life scenarios.
Either none of the commenters read the article or they’re all the type confused by women choosing the bear.
Nothing but fragile male egos on display.
Collecting data to allocate limited resources and you’re all acting like it’s a personal attack on your manhood with some are as an reason to lean in on their toxic masculinity.
Either none of the commenters read the article or they’re all the type confused by women choosing the bear.
Nothing but fragile male egos on display.
Take your lazy gendered stereotypes away with you please.
Stop being a stereotype.
And people like you and the other men in this thread are why women won’t support anarchy.
Do you not see the contradiction between centralised surveillance like this and anarchy? Or are you just a troll?
What I see is a complete lack of sympathy for why women feel this is needing. Instead it’s men feeling attacked and it’s done with a level of hysteria that prevents a rational discussion.
We can get to a decentralized system by ignoring why people feel they need a centralized system. But we’re not able to talk about that because male fragile egos dominate the conversations.
What I see is a complete lack of sympathy for why women feel this is needing. Instead it’s men feeling attacked and it’s done with a level of hysteria that prevents a rational discussion.
It could be argued that you’re demonstrating the mirror of what you’re describing.
When you come to a discussion with notions of how people are going to respond to you, it can be quite easy to trigger exactly the behaviour that you’re expecting to see. Come expecting rancour, and rancour may well be what you find.
But we’re not able to talk about that because male fragile egos dominate the conversations.
You know I would take a different perspective on this. It’s common for men to believe that expressing emotional vulnerability is a weakness; it’s something that should be stamped out. Think of the Stoic male stereotype. And I think your idea of ‘male fragile egos’ plays into this trope; to me, it’s only a step removed from telling all these men to stop whining because their feelings don’t matter. I personally don’t think you can be a legitimate feminist and reinforce toxic gender stereotypes like this at the same time.
What I see in this thread is men, sometimes indirectly, expressing feelings of vulnerability. To tell these people that what they’re feeling doesn’t matter because women have it worse, and worse tell them that they should have show sympathy, means that everyone sees a degree of hypocrisy.
So why would they be likely to take you arguments seriously?
That’s a lot of words to say I’m being incendiary. Which I won’t disagree with but the post itself is as are every other comment I read before posting.
The difference is I read the article and they reacted to a blurb designed to make them react exactly as they reacted.
The thread is bait and I’m calling out people for being so easily baited and suggesting why I believe they are being baited, the incendiary part.
Anyone is free to disagree but that isn’t what happened, instead everyone has made excuses for why their reaction was justified.
This means I correctly predicted at some level why they reacted to the bait. So why am I the only one in the wrong here?
LOL. What are your problems?
My problems? You’re going need to be more specific. I suspect you’re not seriously asking becuase you don’t actually give a shit about me at any level and assume I feel the same way.
Ratio’d on god lolol
I knew it would. These systems are needed because of the men making these comments. The irony is lost on them but I find it quite hilarious.
This article is using every trick in the dystopian playbook to try to emotionally appeal to people. Protecting women, especially the young girls!
“I think we have to develop solutions that put the responsibility back into other places like public authorities, owners of spaces, police forces,” she says.
But she still comes out and says what she really wants: more power vested into private, wealthy owners of spaces, to the state, and to the police.
Surely nothing can go wrong. Surely this is about equality for everyone and it definitely won’t disproportionately impact men of color. Surely this won’t run afoul of any tricky edge cases like trans people. Surely this won’t be used to deliscriminate against the poors while still allowing anyone in an expensive suit to do whatever the fuck they want.
This article is using every trick in the dystopian playbook to try to emotionally appeal to people. Protecting women, especially the young girls!
Oh man, PhilosophyTube has an character-devoted bit to this lol
The UK is a dystopian shithole. They took 1984 and used it as an instruction manual.
This is global. My town is installing Flock cameras to “stop dangerous speeding and red-light running”. Never mind that it also is networked with every single other camera, reads license plates, and use AI to track people everywhere they go. There’s no danger, though. That’s just coincidence…
If it helps, a lot of these stories don’t go anywhere in the end.
CCTV cameras are a lot more accepted, but it’s not as extreme as the media often makes it out to be.
The article shows how this tech is already in use in places like King’s Cross.
Not really, it’s just one wanna-be entrepeneur and a handful of knobheads wanting to implement it.
You wanna see dystopian shithole then check US news lmao
lol
When talking about surveilling society at large, as this person is suggesting, it’s important to remember that there is no such thing as surveilling a subset of the population.
Everyone who crosses the boundaries of surveillance, without exception, gets surveilled.
When you point a camera at a crowd, it does not selectively exclude everyone but your chosen subject: a camera photographs all. People and systems behind the camera then manipulate and match that data to suit their objectives, and that’s where it becomes completely unaccountable, because the data has already been collected on all.
Today, supposedly, it’s dastardly men, the suggestion being that all others will be excluded and thus this extended surveillance of all public spaces must be benign for everyone who is not a dastardly man. But in other places and times, it was runaway slaves, or homosexuals. Recently it has been women seeking abortions and trans people and immigrants. Tomorrow it will be those guilty of wrongthink.
And all are surveilled, because everyone is surveilled.
This surveillance WILL be used to the maximum of its capability, and very quickly, regardless of whatever guidelines or original purpose or its stated goals are said to be in the beginning.
These are nothing but lines in the sand that will be washed away almost immediately, because there’s just no way to exclude specific groups from widespread surveillance, and our collective governments are far too corrupt and unstable and greedy for power to ever cut off their own access to it.
Exactly. This is a privacy issue, not a “men’s” issue, otherwise I’d have found a “manosphere” forum for it (don’t know if one actually exists on Lemmy). As you say, this is equivalent to “we must protect the children” as motivation for pretty much everything that takes away liberty, except it’s the women who are the “children” in this version. It’s just a means to getting the controls in place so it can be used freely to everybody’s detriment.
Oh, yeah, it absolutely does belong here. And the “reasons” we absolutely need this or that new incursion on our privacy are always something that ends up being inflated to cartoonish proportions, while everyone else is supposed to feel reassured.
Lol, no. What surveillance ends up being used for primarily – not even as an exception but as its primary goal – is backwards criminalization, where a person or organization in power has someone in front of them now that they wish to see rendered powerless, or disregarded, or silenced, so they just go back through the data looking for the points where that troublesome person stepped over some invisible line, charge them retroactively for their “crime”, and are done with them.
Even in the example of the article, surveillance doesn’t prevent anything. It only ever looks back. In a world (especially in the UK) where cameras already abound but crime rates stay the same or go higher, and regular police forces that supposedly exist to serve the community remain strapped, understaffed and underfunded, it is unrealistic to believe there will be some magical space where this collected surveillance data is processed, rings some alarm as designed, and the good guys come pouring out of a nearby substation to save the damsel in distress.
And we know this because there are already countless criminal alarms, and data, and specific cries for help that get ignored as a matter of routine. This new alarm will simply be added to the pile of those already ignored, while the people in power – who really want to just pre-emptively collect surveillance data on a supposedly free society – use it at-will and unseen to create and keep their own power by any means possible.
CCTV operator here. One thing people misunderstand is that cameras don’t tell a story, they corroborate a narrative. In other words the footage is often open to multiple interpretations, not just one side of the story. (We’ve seen this play out with the recent ICE shootings)
One big difference between CCTV and these “smart lasers” is that CCTV is retroactive; Meanwhile this system appears to aim to prevent crimes. Anyone who has seen the movie Minority Report, knows where I’m going with this.
“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” - William Blackstone ~1760
Basically this system, if not transparent, could easily be used to falsely accuse and oppress people. Not just men either. I’m sure Jim Crow would have installed lasers on the water fountains if they had them.
deleted by creator
We’re talking the same AI systems that protect children from lethal bags of chips, and the same kind of premise that lead to vulnerable women getting their info stolen?
Wow, the Baltimore one I didn’t know about and that’s also beyond dystopian. Jeez, the response by authorities being “sorry, but it did the right thing, move along” reminds me of the movie “Brazil”. If you read the article, you already know that yes, it’s like that one, but in England, and every public place. Worse though, because it’s judgment of where you stand, sit, walk or cast your eyes in relation to any woman in the area.
If unusual behaviours are detected, for example a large group of people moves suddenly or in an unexpected way, security teams on the ground are alerted and can check if there is a problem.
Yes this will definitely be used only for its intended purpose
