41–50 of 88 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have no expectation of privacy in public or on state owned areas (roads, walkways, squares, parks).
No expectation is different from your information being automatically stored and analyzed (and easily traced back to you whenever the government feels like it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have no expectation of privacy in public or on state owned areas (roads, walkways, squares, parks).
Maybe you should be entitled to some respect for your privacy in public, though. Indeed in some places you are today. There is no good reason to extrapolate from the natural situation that "If you go out then someone might see you" to the entirely unnatural "If you go out then you should be subject to arbitrary surveillance, recording and analysis by unknown parties who also have access to unknown additional data abo…
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 "…
So if all the parts of town had CCTV then it would be better right?
I suppose in theory, if you blanketed the entire country with CCTV (just one town is no good, the crime can move to the next town over) then you might have a deterrent effect, but of course all the other concerns about mass surveillance would still apply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I've lived in the U.S for over 20 years in multiple regions, I've lived in Denmark for over 20 years, and been around other parts of Europe reasonably much, and I have some experience about how racism works in Brazil. 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 translata…
You make an excellent point about an algorithm being trained in the US being used in Prague. They might not be applicable since Czech Republic since training an algorithm in what is a few steps up from an apartheid state will of course be doped with the racial biases of that country.
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 "…
What do you mean by normal? Not doing anything illegal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have no expectation of privacy in public or on state owned areas (roads, walkways, squares, parks).
So you're fine with your everyday movements logged and published online? After all, to go anywhere you'll need to step public roads, so you have no expectation of privacy.
This comment will be downvoted, but this is hyperbole. Your everyday movements are more than just your activity in public spaces.
Likewise any website publishing your activity in public spaces is not entitled to linking it to your PII, because if they do deanonymize it, you now have means to take it down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you should be entitled to some respect for your privacy in public, though. Indeed in some places you are today. There is no good reason to extrapolate from the natural situation that "If you go out then someone might see you" to the entirely unnatural "If you go out then you should be subject to arbitrary surveillance, recording and analysis by unknown parties who also have access to unknown additional data abo…
Sure. And the article is about exactly that.
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.
When it comes to the police force surveillance, prejudicial bias is more a problem than a red herring. It's true that mass surveillance is an issue but how it is implemented can be an issue as well. I'm curious - how does a wealthy person retain their privacy from this type of mass surveillance but the working class does not?
It's also possible that more affluent neighborhoods have fewer cameras.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're fine with your everyday movements logged and published online? After all, to go anywhere you'll need to step public roads, so you have no expectation of privacy.
>So you're fine with your everyday movements logged and published online? This comment will be downvoted, but this is hyperbole. Your everyday movements are more than just your activity in public spaces. Likewise any website publishing your activity in public spaces is not entitled to linking it to your PII, because if they do deanonymize it, you now have means to take it down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the French ones are right-wing, 5/7 from Les Républicains (The Republicans, a right-wing conservative party). That doesn't say that much, as most of France is under right-wing leadership at the moment (president is centre-right)
Curious, do the French people consider Macron a right winger?