Wow, I can't describe how weird it is to see this story on HN. I live in a suburb that has these cameras and for so long I've been the only person I know that's remotely concerned about the implications of having face detection capable cameras, at every corner.

In fact, I'm writing this comment using the aerial fibre lines mentioned in the article, and after reading this I am genuinely unsure if I should cancel my line. I really do not want to be funding private surveillance of my entire city.

Having said that, I have some thoughts on the article, and I would like to put them in writing, partly to clarify them for myself.

1. Holy shit

I want to start off by saying holy shit, because it is the first reaction I had to this story. Living right next to these things, I was only aware of a small amount of what is being reported in this article. I don't know if this is just because I don't read much local news or because the local reporting on this is not that great, either way, this is the first time I'm hearing about a lot of the details of the companies and processes involved.

I think what is most shocking to me is that (1) the fibre lines were installed primarily for the purposes of surveillance. (2) A single private company has access to footage across the entire city. (3) The cameras are already being used for evil.

(1) is crazy not because the purpose of why something was installed matters much now, but mostly because it’s crazy to me that I got excited about getting fibre and my entire neighbourhood being covered in fibre, when I actually getting pumped about my entire neighbourhood being covered with modern surveillance cameras. I signed up for fibre, at my house, the day it was available, and I feel kind of stunned that I actually played a role in this thing coming into existence.

(2) is one of the most disturbing new things I learned from this article. Vumacam is creating networks of networks which means that not only will all of the new cameras and footage belong to one company, but old networks will be integrated too. Meaning that, one company will essentially have access to the entire city. This map of their coverage and planned coverage shows how insane this is https://video-images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1574373771175-V...

If they really do reach their goal of covering that much area with their cameras, they will have a version of the sonar machine from the Dark Knight, or the airplane from the "Eye in the Sky" episode of radiolab https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/sky

It would be absurd to give this power to a government, yet a lone a private company. I wouldn't trust the current SA government or vumacam, with these cameras, even right now, and who knows what both of these entities might become or change into. However, at least if the cameras were in the hands of a government, they couldn't be acquired easily. As it stands, someone who is just very wealthy, could probably acquire vumacam and have access to footage of the entire city. What if it were, instead, Naspers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naspers that buys vumacam? Suddenly there would be a company with questionable ties to China, owning footage of the entire city. Probably wouldn't be great for anyone participating in a pro Hong Kong march, not that there have been any in SA, but still.

(3) The fact that there these cameras are already being used for evil hit me hard. Everyone should read the log and actions, that are produced by these cameras: https://web.archive.org/web/20150317191310/http://fibrehoods...

What is occurring in this log is insane. Normal people being stopped, monitored and intimidated for doing nothing, would be awful in any country but it is particularly bad in SA, where, like the article mentions, this occurred with a paper system against black people, under Apartheid.

This is very surprising to me, because I thought this is something that would probably happen in the future, and not something that would be happening right now.

2. Huawei

I just want to take this time to briefly mention that state owned china tech is all over this network. When the cables were being installed, people with Huawei reflector vests were all over my neighbourhood. If you look at the camera's, they are all made by Hikvision. My fibre modem is also made by Huawei. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it’s very possible the CCP could gain access to every camera on this network.

3. Race

The article has rightly focused on how this camera network particularly affects black people. This is absolutely true, and all the points it makes on this are, I think, correct. However, part of me wishes that the article would've eventually turned to speak about the effects of the network on everyone, black and white. I don't disagree that in the short term and maybe even quite far into the future, it will be black people that are affected the worst by this system. But I think the article has left out that the predominantly white neighbourhoods where the cameras are being installed, will inevitably be used to surveil on those who wanted them installed in the first place, to "reduce crime". Whatever crime might be defined as in the future.

3. Crime

Crime is covered in the article, but not well. And I think their coverage of it felt a little out of touch, given that it is a major reason for people wanting these cameras in the first place. Funnily enough, the author has a quote in the article, which I think does perfectly describe what crime feels like in SA, but without fully expanding on the contents of the quote.

> “I think the closer the crime is to your person, the harder it hits people.”

This is 100% true. It is hard for me to accurately describe my experience with crime in SA, but I will try, and expand on this quote anyway.

I, luckily, have not been that badly affected by crime. But even with just the few minor encounters I have had with it, I still feel scared, everywhere, all the time.

One story I can share is when I was almost robbed. This is a minor incident, compared to other stuff in SA, but it affected me badly. I was watching TV and heard a loud banging near my gate. Thought it was just construction. Nbd. But It carries on for a minute, so I decide to get up and check what's going on. I see someone with a hammer hitting my gate over and over again, trying to break in. I didn't know how far they had gotten. I didn't know how strong my gate was, all I knew was that their intent was to get into my house and in the best case, steal some stuff.

When I saw the guy trying to break in, I was initially very confused. It probably took me 10-15 seconds before I realised what was going on. Once I understood what was going on, I then had to call my security company and get everyone into a safe place. It’s hard to explain, but making the call was mentally fatiguing. I don't know why, but everything from doing the unlock pattern on my phone, to selecting the right contact, took effort. Like I had never done it before. At the same time, I was trying to lock all the doors, and also head deeper into the house. It was a goddamn nightmare. When me, and everyone else that was with me, finally got as many doors between us and the outside as we could, we just had to sit there and hope really hard that none of us would be hurt. It took a couple of minutes but eventually our security company arrived and gave us the all clear. The guy had run away for some reason.

So, when the author says: "To guard against crime, the mostly white, wealthy households of the suburbs have traditionally been fortified with high concrete walls, electric wire, guard dogs, surveillance cameras, and alarm systems." I feel like their tone is particularly unhelpful because they don't discuss any of the 'why', why people have high walls, electric fences and cameras. Instead we just get, what feels like to me, a snarky comment that rich white people have high walls and want cameras.

So yeah, I have high walls and an alarm because every day I am worried about being murdered in my house. And I have to say, that ultimately the thing the article neglects, is that its ridiculously scary to live in SA, and particularly Johannesburg. You are on edge all the time. Wherever you go you are scared. At least that's true for me, and I suspect its true for the people that are pro these cameras.

Living here, it’s very easy for me to see the other side of this, if less people die, and I feel personally safer because some company I have never heard of installs cameras everywhere, how could you say no, especially if you have had personal experiences with crime?

Personally, I think blanketing the city with privately owned cameras does not justify the ends of crime possibly going down. What it could lead to, is much worse than the crime we have now. But crime in SA is a real problem, and if people in much safer countries are struggling to fight off face detection everywhere, all the more reason we should understand the reasons people want these cameras. It’s probably not because they are racist or rich, but just because they are scared.