61–70 of 314 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world is going to be filled with millions of cameras using AI to analyze the video in real time.
Doesn't have to be. Here in the Netherlands it's actually illegal to (permanently) film public space, and people can and will point that out to any offenders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world is going to be filled with millions of cameras using AI to analyze the video in real time.
Doesn't have to be. Here in the Netherlands it's actually illegal to (permanently) film public space, and people can and will point that out to any offenders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once something illegal is culturally accepted it’s very difficult to remove, it requires a cultural shift. It’s against the law to post cctv onto things like Facebook in the U.K. but people donor all the time. Early on the law could have banned cloud cameras but it’s too late now, far too many people like to answer front their phones. So glad I no ln get deliver pizzas.
>>It’s against the law to post cctv onto things like Facebook in the U.K. I live in the UK and first time I'm hearing about this - it's definitely illegal to record your neighbours or members of the public without permission, but AFAIK if you are recording videos of your own driveway you can post those anywhere you like since there is no privacy issue there. Have you got any more info about this? Edit: let me clarify…
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-usi...
Data protection laws are very rarely enforced though
Stallman was right.
It's easy to be right when you live outside the boundaries of reality. E.g. he won't (didn't?) own a mobile phone, but is okay with borrowing someone else's. He won't use Wi-Fi where he has to log in but would happily borrow someone else's. It's not being right; it's shifting responsibility in exchange for his own personal convenience.
One might disagree with value of the example being set, but I'm not sure I would characterize his choices as in any way convenient for him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Once something illegal is culturally accepted it’s very difficult to remove, it requires a cultural shift. I agree. And that's sensible. We don't want the law and culture to diverge too much. The former is meant to serve the latter. But I do still think it would be possible to start going after the suppliers of the services.
> The former is meant to serve the latter. Bear in mind europe is known for millennia of pogroms and ethnic cleansing (like, I'm sure, many other parts of the world). Sometimes the culture must bend towards the needs of a stable culture.
Of course. I'm absolutely not saying that culture shouldn't bend. I'm just saying the law must bend to follow culture to some degree.
And let's be clear: it wasn't a change of law that ended the millennia of pogroms and ethnic cleansing. It was culture that changed. Once culture was enough changed for enough people, the law followed and took care of the stragglers.
Funny how a single superbowl ad from Ring themselves was able to do in one weekend what a thousand and one anti Ring bloggers were unable to do for the past 10 years straight. This commercial and the response will probably be studied in marketing classes.
Regardless of how you see it, although the ad was a kind of manipulative reframing of surveillance infrastructure by using pets as means of psychological manipulation, the Super Bowl ad seems to have just been an unfortunate (or fortunately) timed ad that caused people to glimpse through the cracks in the control matrix being constructed around them.
I don’t think it will really make a difference though. It’s like wildebeest watching their compatriot snatched underwater by a crocodile, to only momentarily pause before venturing right into the same river.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to be right when you live outside the boundaries of reality. E.g. he won't (didn't?) own a mobile phone, but is okay with borrowing someone else's. He won't use Wi-Fi where he has to log in but would happily borrow someone else's. It's not being right; it's shifting responsibility in exchange for his own personal convenience.
It's called 'setting an example'. One might disagree with value of the example being set, but I'm not sure I would characterize his choices as in any way convenient for him.
Live like the Amish in 2026 (though I assume they have phones now).
It's not setting an example. We have a word for it and it's called being a mooch.
The attitude is consistent with that famous video where RMS explains that he's "never installed GNU/Linux" because he could just ask someone else to do it for him, and suggest others should do the same.
For that matter, why own a car if we can borrow someone else's? Especially with license plate readers and traffic cameras everywhere, who wants to be tracked? Let your friend be tracked instead. That is the level of logic here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here in Norway, and I assume in much of Europe, it's actually illegal. But that hasn't stopped anyone. The (little) discussion there's been on the topic has mostly centered around car sentry cams, which is very similar in nature. Sadly, the only state authority that seems to care is so underfunded that they can barely cover a fraction of these cases. And there's (rightfully) very little appetite for them to go after…
> and I assume in much of Europe No. In Poland it's legal to record everything, only when you publish the recordings you need the recorded people to agree. The core issue is that "nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument is correct as long as the government is trustworthy. Not only that, but mass-surveilance greatly improves life because it allows much better crowd management. Case in point - speed cameras. Would yo…
Interesting. Thanks for this perspective. But for the sake of this debate it's still more or less the same situation.
> The core issue is that "nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument is correct as long as the government is trustworthy.
The government and everyone else who might have access to the data.
> Not only that, but mass-surveilance greatly improves life because it allows much better crowd management.
Hard disagree.
> Case in point - speed cameras. Would you support the removal of all speed cameras in Norway?
No. Speed cameras are different. They do more or less not record people who are not reasonably suspected of committing the crime of speeding. They are more analogous to a doorbell camera (or car sentry system) that only actually starts storing/sharing/streaming data when very good evidence of a crime is in progress. I would, for example, be OK with a camera pointed at a public area if the operator of the camera can prove that the data is only stored whenever say the house's burglary alarm trips (this is equivalent to speed cameras when the induction loop in the ground says that a car passed faster than the speed limit). That minute of recording that may include innocent people in public areas is something I would consider to be in the public good. It's at least very different from a system that monitors continuously.
The fact that nothing is stored in normal circumstances of course needs to be backed up by very public audits. For example the operator would need to release source code and be liable to an enormous fine if state inspectors find that different code actually runs on the device. At least that seems like the ideal situation to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a local one (reolink). Prompted by neighbors getting robbed unfortunately. Will this prevent crime? Maybe some but probably not all. But it would let me know if I have to file a stolen package claim or should wait on the package for a few more days. Plus it has been doubling as a trail camera for the local fauna I had no idea came by so frequently. It faces private property only as it is set up.
The local law enforcement will likely not have the time to chase individual small cases either...