A lot of cameras ID you by your eyes, so a medical mask wouldn't really work. If you use a mask + something like Reflectacles, you'll probably be okay.
Let's say there's a camera system built due to a direct public vote and rolled out by a political party all agree defends democracy. The stated goal is catching red light violations and speeders, and it's a popular system. As part of the functionality it reads license plates, and that is verified by a human every time, and no footage is stored if there's no violation.
Is that system fascist? Most would say no, and it exists in many states, like California and Washington.
Then the next election, a fascist is elected, and one of the first moves is to repurpose that system to track undesirables, and now it stores a ton of footage.
Is that system now fascist? It's the same exact system as in the previous example, it's just being used for fascist ends, such as tracking vehicles with certain plates (e.g. Illegal immigrants, minorities, etc) Nothing has changed in the capabilities or programming of the system, the only change was when to capture footage, what people use it for, and how long to store it.
Yes, it's theoretically possible to design a fascist system, such as an LLM that only gives fascist answers, but that's an incredibly narrow definition.
Yeah, ideally something like Immich is just some metadata pointing at existing files. An album should be some combination of synced directories (i.e. new files added outside Immich should be detected and added, if selected) and individual files.
That doesn't sound that complex. Maybe I'll look into Immich and see about adding that. I don't currently use it, but I don't have an image solution, so I'll give it a shot.
If you don't want to actually have discussions, what's the point of being on Lemmy? Why not just post on a blog or something?
Who knows, maybe you'll convince me! It's happened multiple times here on Lemmy and back on Reddit. Bring evidence with sound reasoning and I'll do the same, and hopefully we'll both come away with more understanding.
Unfortunately, with smart home stuff, you need to choose between ease of use and control. Google provides ease of use because their stuff all works together out of the box, but there's also a whole ecosystem of stuff that works together that takes a bit more effort to connect.
The barrier to actually controlling your smart home isn't super high, but there are some things you need to learn about to pick devices. Another user mentioned a few things to research, but I'll point you another direction that's a bit like throwing you in the deep end.
HomeAssistant is a self-hostable hub for various smart things. Basically, you'll install it on your computer and figure out which of your current devices work with it. Your setup will only be available at home until you get a way to access it from outside your home, but don't worry about that to start, there are services you can use to simplify that later (or ask on !selfhosted@lemmy.world). Once it's setup, you need to decide what things you can't connect that you'd like to replace and look at your options (most likely you'll pick ZigBee or ZWave devices, maybe Matter). HomeAssistant's website has a bunch of documentation about various devices, like which will work, so you can use that to help shop too.
If you can manage that, you'll get a lot more control over your smart home and eliminate whatever monthly fee you pay. Some devices won't be available, but the ones you pick will continue to work as long as the hardware isn't broken (even if the manufacturer discontinues support).
Also, if it works on multiple, competing platforms, it's likely following an open standard. Can you use a mix of devices from competing companies on a third, competing platform? If so, you'll probably be fine.
I have a smart thermostat, but it's not from Google and is compatible with Home Assistant.
If surveillance capitalism feeding algorithms had been resisted over the last couple of decades, you might not have Trump now.
No, we'd still have Trump, and the two are unrelated.
People like Trump because he's an outsider, which shows how frustrated people are in the establishment. They thoroughly rejected Jeb Bush, who was supposed to be a shoe-in, probably because they didn't want a Bush dynasty. And because of that frustration with the establishment, we got orange man and his fascist friends.
To prevent Trump, we needed a massive shift in transparency in government and electoral reform so third parties have a real shot.
Their argument was that software can, in itself, be fascist, and that's what we went around and around on. The example given was facial recognition software that can determine race (and later, country of origin).
Essentially, I said exactly what you're saying, while they argued the opposite. I wish I quoted them, but I did only directly address their claims, if you'll take my word for it.
I don't want the government to have and use facial recognition software (their example) and extensive security camera systems (my example, such as Flock), not because those solutions are fascist in and of themselves, but that they can be used by fascists to accomplish their goals. Even if the current regime uses them purely for good (i.e. completely opt in facial recognition, cameras inaccessible to police until there's a warrant with no passive collection) the next regime may not.
If anyone is refusing to engage, it's you. You provided no argument for your position, whereas I've explained as best I can in detail, with examples of similar things. Me not agreeing with you isn't "refusing to engage," it's a good faith debate.
If there's some point you've made that I've failed to address, I apologize, I tried to be thorough to not waste any time going back and forth.
Again, it's not the software itself that's fascist, it's what it's being used for that's fascist. Facial recognition for determining citizenship could absolutely be used for non-fascist purposes, like simplifying border crossings to not require documentation (i.e. completely opt-in). Likewise, surveillance systems can also not be used until there's an actual warrant (i.e. no passive recording), which can help in catching dangerous criminals.
The technology itself isn't fascist, it's how it's applied that's fascist. The mass data collection is fascist, the tools used to collect that data isn't fascist in the same way that guns and tanks aren't fascist, but they can certainly be used by fascists.
The fault lies with the makers and users of the softeware. Software doesn't have political opinions, it's software.
It's like saying Panzer tanks were fascist because they were built by the Nazis. Tanks cannot be fascist, they're tanks. So despite being made and used by fascists, they're not fascist, they're tanks.
That's the same exact thing here. Facial recognition software can be used by fascists, but that doesn't make the software itself fascist.
I haven't really needed to, I just show them. I open up Jellyfin and explain that I put all the movies I own there so I don't need to find the discs or pay for a service like Netflix. Or I'll show them my OCIS setup with LibreOffice online and explain that I don't need Google Docs or Microsoft Office 365. If they ask where it runs, I point to the server on my desk.
Everyone has their own reasons for doing it, and I think they can draw their own conclusions just by seeing it in action.
No, that's not fascist. Facial recognition software can be used for a variety of reasons, like unlocking a phone or laptop, gaining access to secure areas, or home automation stuff.
It's only fascist if used by a government to oppress minorities. The software itself cannot be fascist, but it can be used by fascists.
A lot of cameras ID you by your eyes, so a medical mask wouldn't really work. If you use a mask + something like Reflectacles, you'll probably be okay.