There is an effectively unlimited supply of people willing to take sums of money to work on anti-human endeavors, so long as they and theirs are not the humans involved.
This is wildly off-topic but what does patriotism even mean anymore? What would you say was the last time someone in a position of power sacrificed themselves for the good of the country? vs. sacrificing the country for the good of themselves, which I can assure you was within the last 48 hours?
Edward Snowden? Chelsea Manning? Reality Winner? I'm sure there have been others but these heroes come to mind quickly when considering people who've sacrificed themselves for the good of the country.
Excellent examples, but it unfortunately proves the point: 2018 was the last time you can say someone even somewhat arguably sacrificed themselves for the good of the country. 8 years later we "patriots" pay 7% for mortgages and $7 for diesel as Don Jr. and Hunter enrich themselves on crypto scams and sicko laptop media tours.
A fascinating read, and very timely, thank you for sharing. If ever there was an argument against “too many people would have to keep quiet” this is it. Sickening.
Yeah I got to the part 'We do not agree with these annoying colleagues', and thought - is this guy for serious? Then continue to read all the way down and concluded it has to sarcastic.
I can't help but notice that the cameras emerged on campus around the same time that our generation gained an israel-concious politic and israel-gaza protests started.
Edit: I realize this sounds very conspiratorial and hand-wavey but this is my just my personal anecdote from University of Florida, that the cameras showed up with the protests. There is probably more to university poltics than I am aware of, but my impression is that there is signifigant corruption and adminstrative bloat. A major aspect of college protests was funding wrt Israel. Not that all of my experiences with college have been negative, but I leave with the impression there is something strange in the university system at large.
Definitively must be related to that. My guess is they are worried they might get into trouble if they don't control activism (any expression not in line with the govt.).
As context for this article presumably written for an audience of faculty, a few bits of historical MIT culture:
1. MIT prided itself on having minimal rules. Historically, they think rules are barriers to MIT people doing smart things.
2. MIT valued an open campus. Typical example was that at any time of night students could walk into an empty classroom to work on a problem or something.
3. There is a joke that it stands for "Military-Industrial Technology". There have been very close ties to US govt., more than most than most universities. Whatever goes on at a small set of partifcular universities will be seen by some to affect national security. This is in addition to, like other US research universities, suddenly feeling at the mercy of whatever US administration is controlling the purse strings.
4. Overall strong libertarian bent, of the student body and much of the faculty. This affects how you make non-engineering/science/financial/prestige arguments to this audience. (Excepted are administrative staff, more typically having the background of solid liberal arts educations.)
5. (This one is my own observation) MIT student body overall were less aware of societal and world issues, compared to students overall at the university I was at before. If you see demonstrations on certain issues, that might be originating with international students arriving on campus with concerns felt widely in their home countries, rather than the stereotypical general idealism of young college students.
(Aside: I'm surprised by the style of the article, if the audience is broad MIT faculty. The authors seem to be mostly from humanities pockets, so I wonder whether they bounced a draft off some engineering or science professors. Also, although the article might be implying that inhibiting protests is a motivation (not just an incidental effect) of the surveillance, I didn't see the article acknowledge the horrific recent mass-shooting on campus, which would be an obvious motivation. I'm personally highly skeptical of mass surveillance, and I think there are some profound questions for society, so I'd like to see engagement of the broader faculty.)
They must really love their security cameras to have decided to start decorating them. The bedazzled cameras are lovely to see. My inner 90's child can't wait to apply sparkly plastic rhinestone to their naked exteriors. What's next? Some fake braids and perhaps a troll doll or two?
Also have to commend whoever is in charge of acronyms for this project. I thought I was the most excessive acronym user, but now having read this article, I'm not!
I was also thinking of Aaron. I was just getting into the tech world and found HN around the time that happened. It definitely helped shaped my opinions for many years to come.
If one got a cheap laser and attached a medium quality rifle scope to it such that you could target the lens from a quarter mile away (or more), what power would you need to permanently blind these? What would be the correct tactics to make sure that you can't be caught doing so (with practice, each shot should take less than 15 seconds to set up and execute, so mostly it's about not being caught on another camera)?
No because its not the purpose. The purpose is to reduce risk by having accountability assignment to things like demonstrations that hurts the funding of the institution.
There was a bunch of anti-Israel stuff for example, which goes against the alignment of the university donors. In order to be able to assign accountability and prevent reoccurrence of such events, its useful to know who did these things so you can take necessary measures.
A bunch of cameras cost much much less than what stopped funding would cost the university, so it's the rational choice.
I don't think the board of a 5.3 billion dollar(2025) revenue machine with a 8-9% yearly profit margin care about the latter things to the same extent as the former.
Maybe what has happened is Universities have become too rich and economically important to be places of free speech and independent thought. If so, some other institution will have to take on that role.
I really doubt that putting up some cameras will make the institution suffer monetarily in the long term, especially considering that newer generations are essentially brought up and normalized to full mass surveillance already.
Of course it won't. It never has. The people making these decisions and profiting from them will be long gone, even if it ends up hurting the university (which it won't)
How would a camera stop a break in? All that does it catch it on camera. So many celebrities and rich people all have top of the line security systems connected to rapid response patrols already stationed in the neighborhood to get there faster than police. They still get robbed, and they get to watch a video after of people dressed in all black rifle through their possessions and get out in 3 minutes driving away in a stolen car.
You do have to put some effort into understanding crime and prosecution figures though.
Was it actually flock that saw the cratering of car breakins in 2024 - or was it the increase in successful prosecutions following the passing of SB 905 which closed the "locked door loophole" ?
> have set into motion a plan to cancel our subscriptions to 700+ academic journals integral to our research and teaching.
ehh, this part is a weak take. All universities should cancel their journal subscriptions because journal publishers are parasites. Lots of other things are done by universities in collaboration with each other, without allowing some random for-profit company to collect rents. Publications should be one of them.
Every time we fit out an office building we cover it 100% in cameras, both internally and externally.
Fact is, stuff happens. For example: we once had a crazed person run inside and start yelling profanities at people for no reason. Then, he denied it and reported us to the police for assaulting him. He got his girlfriend to act as a fake witness.
Having the cameras was a no brainer for legally protecting my staff, we could just pull the footage and show that no one touched him.
Similar protections for when male and female staff are working together alone. They are both protected from false accusations, one from harming the other, and the other from potentially false reports/blackmail that they attempted to do something.
We’ve caught interns stealing petty cash from people’s wallets (before cameras - caught in the act)
Is it sad? Yes. But it’s the world we live in and cameras are cheap. No such smaller incidents since the cameras went up. People behave better when they’re being watched, or at least they think we’re being watched. Nobody has actually watched the footage for months and it rolls over in about a week.
I respect that the bling protest. I’d respect the writing to another level if they touch on some of the very public incidents that have happened in/around and associated with MIT, where this level of cost/security was even considered in the first place. This would open more dialog around better approaches as well.
I keep wondering if there’s some kind of positive correlation between prestige of an institution and level of immaturity and fragility of their employees.
Look, I’m not trying to be pro-surveillance state or whatever, but in what universe is a handful of cameras (less than 10 per building) in a publicly accessible space on a private university unusual or alarming?
I thought every university had this, but I guess I’m now learning that my university wasn’t prestigious enough to be exempted from reality.
My high school also had cameras. Isn’t that rather typical?
Keep in mind that pretty much 100% of schools this size have assaults take place every single year on school grounds, in a country where school shootings happen on a literal weekly basis.
Speaking of the supposed cost waste of these cameras: I would be surprised the university can get reasonably priced insurance without them.
Edit: this comment has picked up a lot of attention. I encourage those who are disagreeing with me to go directly to the university’s FAQ on the subject that is linked in the article. They directly state that this surveillance system isn’t new, it merely has some new cameras added to the existing system, audio isn’t recorded, facial recognition isn’t used, AI isn’t used, budget from other programs wasn’t sacrificed to add cameras, and data is stored inside an MIT data center. That’s one reason why I hold skepticism about the objectivity of the authors. I thought the authors were not very generous to the school’s willingness to clarify, and based on that FAQ a lot of accusations/assumptions in the article and discussion seem to be false.
> Look, I’m not trying to be pro-surveillance state or whatever
Kinda sounds like you are, though.
> but in what universe is a handful of cameras (less than 10 per building)
The article notes 6-7 cameras per floor of one particular building. I'm not sure of the size of each floor of that particular building, so 6-7 cameras per floor may cover very little space, or it may cover a lot. That also says nothing about the coverage in other buildings. Larger buildings probably got more cameras.
Either way, often these sorts of things are set up in phases, with higher concentrations of cameras added later, after the system proves itself as useful.
> My high school also had cameras. Isn’t that rather typical?
There's a big difference between your bog-standard security camera that just records footage to a hard drive somewhere, and these cameras, that send live feeds to an AI company, where the video is presumably automatically analyzed and indexed to allow administrators to effortlessly track people's movements. The AI company may (now or in the future) offer real-time alerts of "suspicious activity", which as we all should know by now probably will have a significant false-positive rate. (But cops will treat alerts as gospel without doing any critical thinking.)
There were a lot of things in the article I didn’t take at face value due to the obviously non-neutral point of view of the faculty.
For example, why would I assume that MIT is going to violate Massachusetts law and record audio? The cameras possessing microphone hardware is irrelevant if the software doesn’t turn on audio recording.
MIT clearly states in the FAQ linked in the article that audio isn’t recorded:
> No. The security cameras do not record audio. Massachusetts law prohibits recording audio without the knowledge of those being recorded. Additionally, we do not use facial recognition technology with our security cameras.
As you alluded to, 6-7 cameras per floor might be a lot or might not be. I would think it’s not that many: you’re probably getting two to cover stairwells, one for the elevator, one or two to cover a corridor. As soon as a corridor has a bend or runs a certain distance you’re getting another camera. We’re basically at 4 cameras per floor minimum for the smallest multi-story building possible.
> My high school also had cameras. Isn’t that rather typical?
Security cameras are incredibly typical. Having cameras that record _audio_ are not, and having cameras whose audio and video recordings are handed over to an AI company is _absolutely_ not typical.
Based on the article I really didn’t feel like I could assume that they were really recording audio. I had a hard time believing that MIT was violating state law.
MIT very clearly states that audio isn’t being recorded:
> No. The security cameras do not record audio. Massachusetts law prohibits recording audio without the knowledge of those being recorded. Additionally, we do not use facial recognition technology with our security cameras.
Whether or not the cameras possess microphones is irrelevant.
Many cameras include microphones that the user has no intention of enabling. These are like that, since they're in a state where no-consent audio recording is illegal.
No audio recordings are made or handed over to anyone. Handing video over to a service provider to do things like weapons detection is not uncommon and not inherently a privacy problem. It's done in hospitals today.
> in what universe is a handful of cameras (less than 10 per building) in a publicly accessible space on a private university unusual or alarming?
> My high school also had cameras. Isn’t that rather typical?
I don't think such a handful of cameras means the same thing today as it meant in e.g. the 00s. Lots of things have changed, the government, the politics, the culture, the technical possibilities.
> Lots of things have changed, the government, the politics
This reads like you're saying "When [Good Party] were in charge, they would have always done the right thing, but now [Bad Party] is in charge so we need to handicap the government (perhaps only temporarily, until we get in charge again).
More compelling would be "Doesn't matter if it's a Bernie Sanders Socialists supermajority or a Trump MAGA government, the government shouldn't be allowed to have such-and-such power."
No, I mean that before, the video would've led to a closet where maybe someone was occasionally paying attention, the footage just recorded in a loop, new overwriting old, and it would only be accessed upon request when an incident happened. The matter would be handled internally; people would use their heads.
Now, surveillance can be automated and centralized. Who knows where that footage is being taken. It's no longer necessarily the school handling its matters internally. They can just offload that and accept the judgment of an algorithm. Maybe you're holding a Doritos bag and that results in police swarming you and almost killing you for fear that it was a gun.
> Armed police swarm student after AI mistakes bag of Doritos for a weapon
Re: government and politics, maybe you fear your government is heading towards authoritarianism, something that would've never crossed your mind in the 00s, and that makes more conscious of surveillance. You've also become more conscious about Facebook and Palantir, etc, and how mass surveillance is a thing that's quite different from regular surveillance (handful of buildings, handled manually and autonomously).
It's not about what party. I don't think another Republican candidate would've had the same effect. Also W. Bush was on for most of the 00s; he was Republican, so what are you even talking about with parties? And though politics is a factor, I wouldn't say "When [Good Party] were in charge, they would have always done the right thing". Both ends of the spectrum can suck, and the polarity itself that's been growing in politics can be part of the problem.
Your high school has responcibilities over minors and the video never gets seen except when an incident is reported. Do you think office spaces or libraries need face tracking and ai cataloging surveillance too?
To me that is no different than having someone follow me and everyone else around and writing a report on all my daily activities and submitting it to arbitrary self-appointed authority.
Private office spaces can and do exactly that as long as it complies with the various privacy and biometrics laws out there. MIT is a private university.
I don’t say this as someone who is in favor of that sort of thing beyond a certain point.
Technically the university could literally send a real human to follow you around while you’re inside their buildings. Your professor actually kind of sort of does that while you’re in class and even bases your grades on your behavior, and can report code of conduct violations.
When the data ends up inevitably in the state’s hands (almost certainly thanks to the AI company they’re contracting), it is 100% part of the surveillance state. Same reason telecom providers and Big Tech generally is part of the surveillance state; they’ll just hand over data, no questions asked, no warrants provided.
Let’s say I run some video cameras on my property, and I decide that I’m going to mail the contents of those hard drives to my police department every day.
That’s not the surveillance state. That’s just me as a private entity snitching.
MIT is not a public university. It’s private property not much different than my house. You’re generally not supposed to be in most of their buildings unless you’re a student, faculty, or staff, just like you’re not supposed to be at my house unless I invite you over.
I will concede, though, that some lines are blurred. E.g., MIT has a police force.
The other point of my original comment is really just that it seems like the most prestigious colleges have faculty and students that complain about stuff that’s really typical at less prestigious universities.
MIT has a police force, so in the way that matters for this particular topic, yes, they are a state.
Aside from that, the lines are very blurred these days, as the state often ends up gaining regular, easy access to systems such as this.
(Regardless, it's a bit in bad faith to bring up surveillance-state scenarios, and then, when called on it, claim that it doesn't matter because it technically doesn't apply to the organization at hand. Even though it does in the ways that matter.)
Sorry to interrupt the pedantry about whether a specific entity counts as a state, I'd like to submit the notion that maybe the argument shouldn't be "is a state entity" but rather "is an entity that has some form of authority over my livelihood that is cornering me into a mode of constant surveillance which I do not consent to."
The obvious answer is to leave the organization, but ultimately one shouldn't have to end their employment in order to be free of undue/unjust AI surveillance.
You believe them. You believe the line "I'm not trying to be pro surveillance state", and then you take seriously the points they made which are completely reasonable things to ask, and you engage critically with them, and discuss how those points are compatible or incompatible with the overall stance. It is easy.
As a general rule: to engage charitably with someone you believe the things they say they believe, at face value and attempt to understand how they could come to believe those things.
But I do believe them. It's just that they points that they sincerely ( I did not doubt that) made are part of the same set of points that are made in favor of a surveillance state - there is a contradiction here. Instead of assuming, I asked a question.
Quite literally this:
> attempt to understand how they could come to believe those things.
Is it possible that you are not reading my comment charitably ?
You asked them "why do you go on making these pro surveillance state arguments?"
How is that supposed to be a serious question? They brought up real concerns. The "why" is obviously that they had real questions--that's the purpose of all questions. So they asked them,and then you implied that, if a person was truly not pro-surveillance, they would not ask such questions. Yet they had those questions. So you think they should have pretended to not be confused? Not asked those questions? Pretended like everything made sense? What was the goal here?
You didn't engage with the content of their questions at all. You just called out the act of questioning. You implied that by asking at all they were on the wrong 'side'.
Look, I was trying to understand why the op believed the points that they made were not "pro surveillance-state", that doesn't align with what you are interested in reading here, but that's not really my job.
Everyone who writes 'not trying to sound pro X, but... ' is about to follow that with things that sounds pro X. That's what that rhetorical device means. So they obviously knew that the points sounded pro-surveillance. That's why they wrote that disclaimer.
A charitable read of this article isn't even necessary to understand the point of this is the opposite of the poster you replied to. Basic discernment at most.
Not sure there's a more charitable read on "I don't want to be pro-surveillance, but [bunch of reasons why I think this is fine and that surveillance should be and has been normalized]".
Yes there is. That's the point of the comment. They made their points seriously and people should engage with them seriously. Instead of this reductive tribalism: "oo you expressed doubt about whether this is really bad, you must be One Of Them". Well they actually doubt it. Now what? Does trying to shame them out of doubting it change their mind? Of course not. Either someone engages with their questions and convinces them to agree or they stay on the fence. Trying to shame people out of discussion by pointing out how they're acting like the Wrong People is anti-intellectual and disrespectful and ignorant. Not to mention completely ineffective.
There is an effectively unlimited supply of people willing to take sums of money to work on anti-human endeavors, so long as they and theirs are not the humans involved.
As long as they think these leopards won’t eat their faces, that is.
To paraphrase a Chinese saying, 'Leopards are bad!'.
There is not an unlimited supply of unpatriotic people, no.
Agreed. Not unlimited, effectively unlimited.
This is wildly off-topic but what does patriotism even mean anymore? What would you say was the last time someone in a position of power sacrificed themselves for the good of the country? vs. sacrificing the country for the good of themselves, which I can assure you was within the last 48 hours?
Edward Snowden? Chelsea Manning? Reality Winner? I'm sure there have been others but these heroes come to mind quickly when considering people who've sacrificed themselves for the good of the country.
Excellent examples, but it unfortunately proves the point: 2018 was the last time you can say someone even somewhat arguably sacrificed themselves for the good of the country. 8 years later we "patriots" pay 7% for mortgages and $7 for diesel as Don Jr. and Hunter enrich themselves on crypto scams and sicko laptop media tours.
relevant: https://libroot.org/posts/what-happened-to-the-snowden-archi...
A fascinating read, and very timely, thank you for sharing. If ever there was an argument against “too many people would have to keep quiet” this is it. Sickening.
What?! Apparently only about 1% of the estimated hundreds of thousands of documents were ever published.
> Thankfully, the Sauronic array of electronic eyeballs can suppress that kind of rowdiness,
I don't think I've seen this descriptive adjective before, but it is brilliant.
MIT may need to establish an endowed chair for its department of Sauronical Engineering.
If you fail to read the article you might not realize it's being sarcastic.
I fear for our society if anyone with a high school diploma made it past the second paragraph without realizing this was satire.
The headline alone makes this clear.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/
Yeah I got to the part 'We do not agree with these annoying colleagues', and thought - is this guy for serious? Then continue to read all the way down and concluded it has to sarcastic.
I can't help but notice that the cameras emerged on campus around the same time that our generation gained an israel-concious politic and israel-gaza protests started.
Edit: I realize this sounds very conspiratorial and hand-wavey but this is my just my personal anecdote from University of Florida, that the cameras showed up with the protests. There is probably more to university poltics than I am aware of, but my impression is that there is signifigant corruption and adminstrative bloat. A major aspect of college protests was funding wrt Israel. Not that all of my experiences with college have been negative, but I leave with the impression there is something strange in the university system at large.
Definitively must be related to that. My guess is they are worried they might get into trouble if they don't control activism (any expression not in line with the govt.).
As context for this article presumably written for an audience of faculty, a few bits of historical MIT culture:
1. MIT prided itself on having minimal rules. Historically, they think rules are barriers to MIT people doing smart things.
2. MIT valued an open campus. Typical example was that at any time of night students could walk into an empty classroom to work on a problem or something.
3. There is a joke that it stands for "Military-Industrial Technology". There have been very close ties to US govt., more than most than most universities. Whatever goes on at a small set of partifcular universities will be seen by some to affect national security. This is in addition to, like other US research universities, suddenly feeling at the mercy of whatever US administration is controlling the purse strings.
4. Overall strong libertarian bent, of the student body and much of the faculty. This affects how you make non-engineering/science/financial/prestige arguments to this audience. (Excepted are administrative staff, more typically having the background of solid liberal arts educations.)
5. (This one is my own observation) MIT student body overall were less aware of societal and world issues, compared to students overall at the university I was at before. If you see demonstrations on certain issues, that might be originating with international students arriving on campus with concerns felt widely in their home countries, rather than the stereotypical general idealism of young college students.
(Aside: I'm surprised by the style of the article, if the audience is broad MIT faculty. The authors seem to be mostly from humanities pockets, so I wonder whether they bounced a draft off some engineering or science professors. Also, although the article might be implying that inhibiting protests is a motivation (not just an incidental effect) of the surveillance, I didn't see the article acknowledge the horrific recent mass-shooting on campus, which would be an obvious motivation. I'm personally highly skeptical of mass surveillance, and I think there are some profound questions for society, so I'd like to see engagement of the broader faculty.)
They must really love their security cameras to have decided to start decorating them. The bedazzled cameras are lovely to see. My inner 90's child can't wait to apply sparkly plastic rhinestone to their naked exteriors. What's next? Some fake braids and perhaps a troll doll or two?
Also have to commend whoever is in charge of acronyms for this project. I thought I was the most excessive acronym user, but now having read this article, I'm not!
The plastic gems are not that cheap either. (~$20 for a mediysized assortment, that's like 2 coffees!) Best AI article I've read all week.
Somehow this reminds me to think of Aaron Schwartz.
I was also thinking of Aaron. I was just getting into the tech world and found HN around the time that happened. It definitely helped shaped my opinions for many years to come.
That was the reference to the download server in the closet.
Just a reminder: Carmen Ortiz judicially murdered Aaron Schwartz in order to unsuccessfully launch a political career.
His name was Aaron Swartz.
https://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/
If you're not bedazzling [surveillance] are you even living [surveillance]?
If one got a cheap laser and attached a medium quality rifle scope to it such that you could target the lens from a quarter mile away (or more), what power would you need to permanently blind these? What would be the correct tactics to make sure that you can't be caught doing so (with practice, each shot should take less than 15 seconds to set up and execute, so mostly it's about not being caught on another camera)?
Has any of this surveillance bullshit reduced the number of incidents that occurred where they have been installed? I find it terrifying.
No because its not the purpose. The purpose is to reduce risk by having accountability assignment to things like demonstrations that hurts the funding of the institution.
There was a bunch of anti-Israel stuff for example, which goes against the alignment of the university donors. In order to be able to assign accountability and prevent reoccurrence of such events, its useful to know who did these things so you can take necessary measures.
A bunch of cameras cost much much less than what stopped funding would cost the university, so it's the rational choice.
If the goal of the university is to be a fund vacuum cleaner it's rational. If the goal is to output free thinking, open minded graduates...
I don't think the board of a 5.3 billion dollar(2025) revenue machine with a 8-9% yearly profit margin care about the latter things to the same extent as the former.
Maybe what has happened is Universities have become too rich and economically important to be places of free speech and independent thought. If so, some other institution will have to take on that role.
What's the monetary incentive to fund such institutions? Or how is such an institution going to survive, pay its teachers, etc?
free thinking, open minded graduates are great as long as they don't question or criticize israel
> it's the rational choice.
Time will tell. Long term, I think it’ll hurt them.
I really doubt that putting up some cameras will make the institution suffer monetarily in the long term, especially considering that newer generations are essentially brought up and normalized to full mass surveillance already.
I’m still waiting for my ancestor’s liege lord to realize that posting a guard outside our town’s tavern was going to backfire long term.
Security, but at what cost?!
Of course it won't. It never has. The people making these decisions and profiting from them will be long gone, even if it ends up hurting the university (which it won't)
> which goes against the alignment of the university donors
Why do we allow non public universities to exist again?
Those protests were anti Genocide and anti land theft, calling them anti Israel is misleading.
Yes, flock cameras basically solved the problem with San Fran car breakins.
How would a camera stop a break in? All that does it catch it on camera. So many celebrities and rich people all have top of the line security systems connected to rapid response patrols already stationed in the neighborhood to get there faster than police. They still get robbed, and they get to watch a video after of people dressed in all black rifle through their possessions and get out in 3 minutes driving away in a stolen car.
Some SF specific clearance rate data:
https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/stay-safe/crime-data/clea...
They only solved 9% of car thefts this year with all this flock surveillance. Little different from last year.
No one from the city calls it San Fran.
Wikipedia claims it's used by "non-native residents" - who, it might be argued, are "from" the city since they happen to live there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicknames_of_San_Francisco
You don’t have to be from the city to read a crime chart. What kind of absurd gatekeeping is this?
You do have to put some effort into understanding crime and prosecution figures though.
Was it actually flock that saw the cratering of car breakins in 2024 - or was it the increase in successful prosecutions following the passing of SB 905 which closed the "locked door loophole" ?
> have set into motion a plan to cancel our subscriptions to 700+ academic journals integral to our research and teaching.
ehh, this part is a weak take. All universities should cancel their journal subscriptions because journal publishers are parasites. Lots of other things are done by universities in collaboration with each other, without allowing some random for-profit company to collect rents. Publications should be one of them.
Agreed about the companies, but academic journals provide value to students long-term in ways that cameras do not.
On a completely unrelated note, I hear it's quite trivial to construct a portable, short-range EMP device.
For taking down power infrastructure? EMPs will be ineffective against cameras but extremely effective against transmission lines
Most business security cameras are powered by something and are most likely not tied to the emergency power lines.
This correction is not an endorsement.
Every time we fit out an office building we cover it 100% in cameras, both internally and externally.
Fact is, stuff happens. For example: we once had a crazed person run inside and start yelling profanities at people for no reason. Then, he denied it and reported us to the police for assaulting him. He got his girlfriend to act as a fake witness.
Having the cameras was a no brainer for legally protecting my staff, we could just pull the footage and show that no one touched him.
Similar protections for when male and female staff are working together alone. They are both protected from false accusations, one from harming the other, and the other from potentially false reports/blackmail that they attempted to do something.
We’ve caught interns stealing petty cash from people’s wallets (before cameras - caught in the act)
Is it sad? Yes. But it’s the world we live in and cameras are cheap. No such smaller incidents since the cameras went up. People behave better when they’re being watched, or at least they think we’re being watched. Nobody has actually watched the footage for months and it rolls over in about a week.
I respect that the bling protest. I’d respect the writing to another level if they touch on some of the very public incidents that have happened in/around and associated with MIT, where this level of cost/security was even considered in the first place. This would open more dialog around better approaches as well.
I keep wondering if there’s some kind of positive correlation between prestige of an institution and level of immaturity and fragility of their employees.
Look, I’m not trying to be pro-surveillance state or whatever, but in what universe is a handful of cameras (less than 10 per building) in a publicly accessible space on a private university unusual or alarming?
I thought every university had this, but I guess I’m now learning that my university wasn’t prestigious enough to be exempted from reality.
My high school also had cameras. Isn’t that rather typical?
Keep in mind that pretty much 100% of schools this size have assaults take place every single year on school grounds, in a country where school shootings happen on a literal weekly basis.
Speaking of the supposed cost waste of these cameras: I would be surprised the university can get reasonably priced insurance without them.
Edit: this comment has picked up a lot of attention. I encourage those who are disagreeing with me to go directly to the university’s FAQ on the subject that is linked in the article. They directly state that this surveillance system isn’t new, it merely has some new cameras added to the existing system, audio isn’t recorded, facial recognition isn’t used, AI isn’t used, budget from other programs wasn’t sacrificed to add cameras, and data is stored inside an MIT data center. That’s one reason why I hold skepticism about the objectivity of the authors. I thought the authors were not very generous to the school’s willingness to clarify, and based on that FAQ a lot of accusations/assumptions in the article and discussion seem to be false.
https://evpt.mit.edu/campus-security-cameras-frequently-aske...
> Look, I’m not trying to be pro-surveillance state or whatever
Kinda sounds like you are, though.
> but in what universe is a handful of cameras (less than 10 per building)
The article notes 6-7 cameras per floor of one particular building. I'm not sure of the size of each floor of that particular building, so 6-7 cameras per floor may cover very little space, or it may cover a lot. That also says nothing about the coverage in other buildings. Larger buildings probably got more cameras.
Either way, often these sorts of things are set up in phases, with higher concentrations of cameras added later, after the system proves itself as useful.
> My high school also had cameras. Isn’t that rather typical?
There's a big difference between your bog-standard security camera that just records footage to a hard drive somewhere, and these cameras, that send live feeds to an AI company, where the video is presumably automatically analyzed and indexed to allow administrators to effortlessly track people's movements. The AI company may (now or in the future) offer real-time alerts of "suspicious activity", which as we all should know by now probably will have a significant false-positive rate. (But cops will treat alerts as gospel without doing any critical thinking.)
There were a lot of things in the article I didn’t take at face value due to the obviously non-neutral point of view of the faculty.
For example, why would I assume that MIT is going to violate Massachusetts law and record audio? The cameras possessing microphone hardware is irrelevant if the software doesn’t turn on audio recording.
MIT clearly states in the FAQ linked in the article that audio isn’t recorded:
> No. The security cameras do not record audio. Massachusetts law prohibits recording audio without the knowledge of those being recorded. Additionally, we do not use facial recognition technology with our security cameras.
As you alluded to, 6-7 cameras per floor might be a lot or might not be. I would think it’s not that many: you’re probably getting two to cover stairwells, one for the elevator, one or two to cover a corridor. As soon as a corridor has a bend or runs a certain distance you’re getting another camera. We’re basically at 4 cameras per floor minimum for the smallest multi-story building possible.
How do you know that "we" in "we do not use facial recognition technology" covers ambient.ai, who presumably gets the feeds directly?
> My high school also had cameras. Isn’t that rather typical?
Security cameras are incredibly typical. Having cameras that record _audio_ are not, and having cameras whose audio and video recordings are handed over to an AI company is _absolutely_ not typical.
Security cameras on the outside of a building to deter after hours crime is fairly normal.
Security cameras on the inside of a high school strikes me as deeply NOT NORMAL
Admittedly it's been many decades since I was at high school. I think some of your metaphorical frogs might be getting boiled here.
Based on the article I really didn’t feel like I could assume that they were really recording audio. I had a hard time believing that MIT was violating state law.
MIT very clearly states that audio isn’t being recorded:
> No. The security cameras do not record audio. Massachusetts law prohibits recording audio without the knowledge of those being recorded. Additionally, we do not use facial recognition technology with our security cameras.
Whether or not the cameras possess microphones is irrelevant.
Many cameras include microphones that the user has no intention of enabling. These are like that, since they're in a state where no-consent audio recording is illegal.
No audio recordings are made or handed over to anyone. Handing video over to a service provider to do things like weapons detection is not uncommon and not inherently a privacy problem. It's done in hospitals today.
how accurately can a model do lip reading these days?
Is there any equivalent to spraying a camera with paint for audio?
Might as well just smash them if you're already vandalizing. Spray painting is not a lesser offense here.
> in what universe is a handful of cameras (less than 10 per building) in a publicly accessible space on a private university unusual or alarming?
> My high school also had cameras. Isn’t that rather typical?
I don't think such a handful of cameras means the same thing today as it meant in e.g. the 00s. Lots of things have changed, the government, the politics, the culture, the technical possibilities.
> Lots of things have changed, the government, the politics
This reads like you're saying "When [Good Party] were in charge, they would have always done the right thing, but now [Bad Party] is in charge so we need to handicap the government (perhaps only temporarily, until we get in charge again).
More compelling would be "Doesn't matter if it's a Bernie Sanders Socialists supermajority or a Trump MAGA government, the government shouldn't be allowed to have such-and-such power."
No, I mean that before, the video would've led to a closet where maybe someone was occasionally paying attention, the footage just recorded in a loop, new overwriting old, and it would only be accessed upon request when an incident happened. The matter would be handled internally; people would use their heads.
Now, surveillance can be automated and centralized. Who knows where that footage is being taken. It's no longer necessarily the school handling its matters internally. They can just offload that and accept the judgment of an algorithm. Maybe you're holding a Doritos bag and that results in police swarming you and almost killing you for fear that it was a gun.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45684934
> Armed police swarm student after AI mistakes bag of Doritos for a weapon
Re: government and politics, maybe you fear your government is heading towards authoritarianism, something that would've never crossed your mind in the 00s, and that makes more conscious of surveillance. You've also become more conscious about Facebook and Palantir, etc, and how mass surveillance is a thing that's quite different from regular surveillance (handful of buildings, handled manually and autonomously).
It's not about what party. I don't think another Republican candidate would've had the same effect. Also W. Bush was on for most of the 00s; he was Republican, so what are you even talking about with parties? And though politics is a factor, I wouldn't say "When [Good Party] were in charge, they would have always done the right thing". Both ends of the spectrum can suck, and the polarity itself that's been growing in politics can be part of the problem.
Your high school has responcibilities over minors and the video never gets seen except when an incident is reported. Do you think office spaces or libraries need face tracking and ai cataloging surveillance too?
To me that is no different than having someone follow me and everyone else around and writing a report on all my daily activities and submitting it to arbitrary self-appointed authority.
Private office spaces can and do exactly that as long as it complies with the various privacy and biometrics laws out there. MIT is a private university.
I don’t say this as someone who is in favor of that sort of thing beyond a certain point.
Technically the university could literally send a real human to follow you around while you’re inside their buildings. Your professor actually kind of sort of does that while you’re in class and even bases your grades on your behavior, and can report code of conduct violations.
> Look, I’m not trying to be pro-surveillance state or whatever, but
... but why do you then go on making all pro-surveillance state arguments ?
Is MIT a state?
When the data ends up inevitably in the state’s hands (almost certainly thanks to the AI company they’re contracting), it is 100% part of the surveillance state. Same reason telecom providers and Big Tech generally is part of the surveillance state; they’ll just hand over data, no questions asked, no warrants provided.
Let’s say I run some video cameras on my property, and I decide that I’m going to mail the contents of those hard drives to my police department every day.
That’s not the surveillance state. That’s just me as a private entity snitching.
MIT is not a public university. It’s private property not much different than my house. You’re generally not supposed to be in most of their buildings unless you’re a student, faculty, or staff, just like you’re not supposed to be at my house unless I invite you over.
I will concede, though, that some lines are blurred. E.g., MIT has a police force.
The other point of my original comment is really just that it seems like the most prestigious colleges have faculty and students that complain about stuff that’s really typical at less prestigious universities.
> That’s not the surveillance state.
Why not?
> That’s just me as a private entity snitching.
... to the state. You are surveilling for the state.
Domestic surveillance took off with McCarthyism.
MIT has a police force, so in the way that matters for this particular topic, yes, they are a state.
Aside from that, the lines are very blurred these days, as the state often ends up gaining regular, easy access to systems such as this.
(Regardless, it's a bit in bad faith to bring up surveillance-state scenarios, and then, when called on it, claim that it doesn't matter because it technically doesn't apply to the organization at hand. Even though it does in the ways that matter.)
That’s not bad faith, it’s just basic logic. MIT isn’t a state and is just installing security cameras on its private property.
I do concede what you’re saying about its police force, and that’s a fair angle.
Sorry to interrupt the pedantry about whether a specific entity counts as a state, I'd like to submit the notion that maybe the argument shouldn't be "is a state entity" but rather "is an entity that has some form of authority over my livelihood that is cornering me into a mode of constant surveillance which I do not consent to."
The obvious answer is to leave the organization, but ultimately one shouldn't have to end their employment in order to be free of undue/unjust AI surveillance.
Yes, this. That's part of my assertion that this is an argument in bad-faith: focusing on irrelevant details in order to derail an argument.
Yes. They have borders, government, and a police force.
Man I wish HN commenters could be bothered to even attempt to read each other charitably instead of this crap
I did and then I asked a serious question.
These are arguments that are put forward in favor of mass-surveillance.
That is in direct contradiction to the claim "I’m not trying to be pro-surveillance state or whatever".
So I was wondering how that contradiction comes about and asked about it.
What would you suggest the charitable reading should be ?
You believe them. You believe the line "I'm not trying to be pro surveillance state", and then you take seriously the points they made which are completely reasonable things to ask, and you engage critically with them, and discuss how those points are compatible or incompatible with the overall stance. It is easy.
As a general rule: to engage charitably with someone you believe the things they say they believe, at face value and attempt to understand how they could come to believe those things.
But I do believe them. It's just that they points that they sincerely ( I did not doubt that) made are part of the same set of points that are made in favor of a surveillance state - there is a contradiction here. Instead of assuming, I asked a question.
Quite literally this:
> attempt to understand how they could come to believe those things.
Is it possible that you are not reading my comment charitably ?
You asked them "why do you go on making these pro surveillance state arguments?"
How is that supposed to be a serious question? They brought up real concerns. The "why" is obviously that they had real questions--that's the purpose of all questions. So they asked them,and then you implied that, if a person was truly not pro-surveillance, they would not ask such questions. Yet they had those questions. So you think they should have pretended to not be confused? Not asked those questions? Pretended like everything made sense? What was the goal here?
You didn't engage with the content of their questions at all. You just called out the act of questioning. You implied that by asking at all they were on the wrong 'side'.
Look, I was trying to understand why the op believed the points that they made were not "pro surveillance-state", that doesn't align with what you are interested in reading here, but that's not really my job.
> You implied
I think you are implying that I implied.
Best to end this here, probably.
Everyone who writes 'not trying to sound pro X, but... ' is about to follow that with things that sounds pro X. That's what that rhetorical device means. So they obviously knew that the points sounded pro-surveillance. That's why they wrote that disclaimer.
A charitable read of this article isn't even necessary to understand the point of this is the opposite of the poster you replied to. Basic discernment at most.
Not sure there's a more charitable read on "I don't want to be pro-surveillance, but [bunch of reasons why I think this is fine and that surveillance should be and has been normalized]".
Yes there is. That's the point of the comment. They made their points seriously and people should engage with them seriously. Instead of this reductive tribalism: "oo you expressed doubt about whether this is really bad, you must be One Of Them". Well they actually doubt it. Now what? Does trying to shame them out of doubting it change their mind? Of course not. Either someone engages with their questions and convinces them to agree or they stay on the fence. Trying to shame people out of discussion by pointing out how they're acting like the Wrong People is anti-intellectual and disrespectful and ignorant. Not to mention completely ineffective.
Fair point; you're absolutely right.
However, I did follow up with a direct reply before making the comment you're replying to, so... I literally did "engage with their questions".
(to be clear, this thread is not in reply to your comment. There is some overlap though)
whoosh
They don't, did you read it? It's clearly a satirical art project exposing the bullshit.
> My high school also had cameras. Isn’t that rather typical?
What? Absolutely not! At least not in the countries in which I went to school.
According to a quick kagi, over 90% of US high schools have security cameras.
did an AI surveillance startup write this? You gotta be kidding me
I mean the correlation is money. Rich people being outraged