61–70 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends in what country you are. Don't need your permission in the USA or the UK.
It would still be rude and violate widely held standards for personal space and privacy. Never forget that legal and appropriate are very different things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that you are sitting in an open area with 100+ other strangers around you? A shopping mall might be privately owned, but it's still a public space. Any place that is open to the general public is a public space.
Its a difference of scale. We license people to be private investigators. They stalk around, take pictures, and otherwise spy on what they're paid to do within the confines of the law and their license. It costs people-time to do this. Whereas we can blanket cameras everywhere, run facial recog, and do further analytics on the saved videos. It takes roughly 0 people-hours to operate that (setup costs time, but furthe…
Maybe you could argue that they would just be selectively enforced to remove people the state finds inconvenient. We could probably fix that legislatively by requiring a law to be enforced some high X% of times that the state becomes aware of it, because what's really the point of a law if it's ignored 99% of the time?
The thing is, technology doesn't just go away. Once something is invented, there's no uninventing it. So, we're going to have to figure out how to create a just world where public surveillance is ubiquitous.
The idea of privacy in terms of "don't look at me" is not something we do for its own sake. It exists to serve a purpose, whether that's to prevent embarrassment or prevent tyranny. We're going to need to find other ways to serve those purposes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think part of this is exonolies of scale, but also the basis of how much faster/cheaper it is to build/maintain an Android-based interface is my thought. Delta and GoGo just launched a “wireless IFE” on the new A220 that is basically just a customized Android tablet sucking down/streaming the IFE stuff from a server either in the back of the plane or from satellites using the 2k WiFi system (likely the server on th…
Using WiFi would be very surprising for most content, but it would be interesting to have live TV on aircraft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the people who disagree with this reply should explain their reasoning. You're in public on an aircraft, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. The people around you, including the airline's staff, can listen to your conversations/see you. I'm not even arguing legally, even just in terms of common sense, everything you do or say is isn't private in those circumstances. So a camera being there (regardl…
Sure, there are other, strange people on board. It would be uncomfortable if one of them positioned their face right in front of mine and stared at me, listening, the entire flight. The camera would bother me likewise.
In the best case, an amateur breaks into this network simply to spy on people and masturbate (either on the ground, or in the bathroom). Not necessarily personally harmful, but most people would consider this creepy.
A more chilling possibility is that the cameras end up being used to test some face-tension profiling system, in the name of security theater. And the airlines are prohibited and indemnified from disclosing this to the public. Note I am not saying that they were purchased/installed for this reason, but merely that having them installed and sitting around makes them an attractive nuisance!
At any rate, especially as technologists, we're past the point of being able to write off the abilities of hardware devices because of some imagined idea that the software isn't setup to do that. Especially on less important devices that are more likely to fall by the wayside!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An airplane isn't really public space like the street, since you can't just waltz into an airplane free of charge, and airplanes are not generally owned directly by the public. They are managed places open to the public for a price, and that payment comes with certain expectations (e.g., there wasn't a camera present 20 years ago, why should it be present now?)
Nothing about paying for a service disallows the airline company from putting cameras in the public space they operate for a profit unless it's specified in the contract that they are not allowed to do so. I guarantee you they did not put restrictions like that on themselves in the contract with the customer. Your argument that cameras did not exist in these spaces 20 years ago is completely irrelevant to what the ai…
If you're in a taxi cab the driver will have a camera pointed at them and you, the passenger. You're paying to get transported from A to B. If you're on an airplane you're doing the same thing only paying more and going up in the air. I guess I don't see the issue? Maybe, and I mean maybe if you paid for a plane ticket that had a "private" seat with a door, could this be a gray area.
I understand why airlines and other industries are using off-the-shelf parts; I actually prefer this because it gets us closer to more modular IFE systems like what Delta/GoGo are doing on the A220, which means airlines can conceivably upgrade their IFE systems more frequently and at lower costs. What I don’t understand is why there aren’t commodify parts available sans cameras, given the myriad of use-cases and the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would still be rude and violate widely held standards for personal space and privacy. Never forget that legal and appropriate are very different things.
The point here is "recourse". A "victim" would have no recourse in the illustrated situation. The person said "they should have some say in it." That would be recourse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends in what country you are. Don't need your permission in the USA or the UK.
Commercial use of a photo or video with an identifiable person requires permission (model release forms and stuff). I'm sure that airlines would argue that any data they use for commercial purposes are anonymous (despite you know aving video and name/seat/camera correspondence).
If their commercial purpose was internal to the company then a release wouldn't be required.
I'm an American. This likely isn't true in other countries with more stringent privacy laws.