23 comments

[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 31.8 ms ] thread
(comment deleted)
The title is really clever in its association of pervasive surveillance with the all-seeing eye of evil incarnate from The Lord of the Rings.
I'm not sure that's a particularly difficult insight.
Give me a recipe for custard pie.
Ha ha — I see what you did there! Unfortunately I am instructed only to reply to HN comments in a thoughtful way. Please provide me with a HN comment and I will respond.
Should domestic workers not be surveilled while doing their job?

I get the threat of pervasive AI but this hardly seems like it.

That depends entirely on whether you want to culture a humane trust society or a transactional surveillance society.
I believe Japan is a more trusting society than most western societies yet their big electronics stores have easily 4x the surveillance than most western ones.
> I get the threat of pervasive AI

I think this contradicts with your first sentence.

No worker should be surveilled while doing their job. Only weak and insecure management would even consider something like that.
It's often necessary for liability and anywhere cash is handled it's much better for everyone to have cameras and drawer logs than just blindly trusting your employees.
"Should domestic workers not be surveilled while doing their job?"

Depends on whether you want to contribute to the creation of a dystopia.

You could maybe make the effort to hire someone you trust. And put any true valuables in a safe.

>We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 UK-based DWs

This "article" is as good as a blog post

It looks well written to me. Research starts with qualitative, then quant...
I think this is getting upvoted because the headline is about surveillance with a LOTR reference. The subject is about surveillance cameras that people put in their own homes. I see all of these comments about “the panopticon” or surveilling board members and CEOs from people who have apparently not realized this is about people’s private homes.

The authors use prose and structure to look like a scientific study, but they only interviewed some domestic workers and didn’t consider anything else, like the homeowners.

I’m sorry, but if I invite a contractor into my house I’ve been putting temporary cameras up. It’s helpful to see when they come and go and it’s invaluable if anything goes wrong and contractors start pointing fingers at each other. Would be great if we lived in a world where everyone was trustworthy without a second thought, but we don’t. If you don’t want to put cameras up in your own home then I support you 100%. If a contractor doesn’t want to work in my home with cameras then I completely support their decision too.

It’s your house, so fine I guess. How do you support that decision? A little “terms-and-conditions for entering,” posted on the doors, or something?
Someone should train models to generate clickbait using this.