21–30 of 88 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"lawful access" interfaces can mean automatic access by the government. It's outsourced mass surveillance.
In the movies and on TV, they always have to 'ask for the tapes'. Wonder how it really works now - the NSA already has it all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think as long as your in public then it's fine to assume you're being recorded by CCTV. Obviously the government being able to access cameras in your own house like 1984 is not ok. But CCTV in public does reduce crime and help investigations. For example the Central line in London doesn't have CCTV (unlike most of the other lines) and it has the most assaults. https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/central-line-trai…
The idea that you should lose any form of privacy the moment you step outside your home is an extremely dangerous one. The reasons we value privacy do not suddenly cease to apply because you live a normal life. Also, the evidence that CCTV is effective at deterring or solving crime is debatable. There is a plausible alternative theory that it simply moves the crime around. That is OK for you if you live and work in "…
Basically every city in the UK (not technically in the EU since Jan) have it, that's 72 right there. Is this meant to be a secret?
The article is about using Machine Learning on the video feeds, not that there are video feeds. And the issue at hand is that ML algorithms can have racial bias in the classifications.
While all these regions are prone to racism, the experiential reality of racism between two places is not the same, and this article's seeming assumption that the racism of the U.S is directly translatable to these different EU cities is ridiculous.
Of course if someone uses an algorithm trained on the racism of the U.S in Prague they might get something that anyone viewing the reports would find really weird, so that might be an amusing thing to try.
In short the issue at hand is an issue apparently dreamed up by people not realizing that their society's problems are not exactly universal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that you should lose any form of privacy the moment you step outside your home is an extremely dangerous one. The reasons we value privacy do not suddenly cease to apply because you live a normal life. Also, the evidence that CCTV is effective at deterring or solving crime is debatable. There is a plausible alternative theory that it simply moves the crime around. That is OK for you if you live and work in "…
A +1 observation regarding the effectiveness of CCTV being debatable. I used to work in this field and the number of crystal clear views of hoodies and base-ball caps was remarkable. Cameras tend to be mounted up high to deter casual vandalism. As for number plate recognition systems - the ancient trick of stealing a set of number plates from a random vehicle is alive and well. As long as it doesn't ping anything as…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, mass surveillance is A-OK as long as it's not racist .
You have no expectation of privacy in public or on state owned areas (roads, walkways, squares, parks).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like a red herring. They want you to assume that mass violations of privacy are okay as long as they're not racist. They're also ignoring classism - It's fine if the rights of the working class are violated, as long as they're all violated equally. Never-mind the people who can afford privacy on the free market.
I think as long as your in public then it's fine to assume you're being recorded by CCTV. Obviously the government being able to access cameras in your own house like 1984 is not ok. But CCTV in public does reduce crime and help investigations. For example the Central line in London doesn't have CCTV (unlike most of the other lines) and it has the most assaults. https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/central-line-trai…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A +1 observation regarding the effectiveness of CCTV being debatable. I used to work in this field and the number of crystal clear views of hoodies and base-ball caps was remarkable. Cameras tend to be mounted up high to deter casual vandalism. As for number plate recognition systems - the ancient trick of stealing a set of number plates from a random vehicle is alive and well. As long as it doesn't ping anything as…
Why bother stealing it? All that's going to do is attract attention and get your stolen plate flagged/revoked. Copying someone else's plate achieves the same goal without the unnecessary attention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think as long as your in public then it's fine to assume you're being recorded by CCTV. Obviously the government being able to access cameras in your own house like 1984 is not ok. But CCTV in public does reduce crime and help investigations. For example the Central line in London doesn't have CCTV (unlike most of the other lines) and it has the most assaults. https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/central-line-trai…
The idea that you should lose any form of privacy the moment you step outside your home is an extremely dangerous one. The reasons we value privacy do not suddenly cease to apply because you live a normal life. Also, the evidence that CCTV is effective at deterring or solving crime is debatable. There is a plausible alternative theory that it simply moves the crime around. That is OK for you if you live and work in "…