21–30 of 40 posts
Seriously, what kind of a company will design "Tombstone Cam" for surveillance in cemetery ? To catch a pervert or predator or human-eater? This is bizarre.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlawn_Cemetery#Vandalism
> In warning the site not to disclose the brochure, SSG’s attorney reportedly claimed the document is protected under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), though the notice did not point to any specific section of the law, which was enacted to regulate arms exports at the height of the Cold War. We really need an overhaul of all these old laws that were enacted for a completely different era, which a…
Also, the article is somewhat misleading when it says that the law "encompasses a wide range of actual military equipment that can’t be replicated in a home garage, such as space launch vehicles, nuclear reactors, and anti-helicopter mines". I mean, it's true that the law does encompass all of these - but it also applies to many things that can be replicated in a home garage. For example, wood furniture (handguard or pistol grip) for any firearm is an ITAR-controlled item.
The combination of these two is why there are a lot of small businesses in Europe and Asia that import firearm accessories and other "tactical" products into the US, but US exports are all done by large corporations that can go through the regulatory hurdles.
Seriously, what kind of a company will design "Tombstone Cam" for surveillance in cemetery ? To catch a pervert or predator or human-eater? This is bizarre.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the thing that perplexes me? People buy internet connected cameras and microphones for everything from their phones, to their tv's, to their door bells, and then they get upset that their activities are law enforcement accessible on whatever company's servers? I mean, what did people think would happen? That's just the natural way to use that data. How else would such data be used? Maybe to find workman comp f…
>For me, it just sounds like a really good reason not to be buying cameras and microphones and slapping them up all over the place. It's being sold as convenience and we can expect a lot more of it. The last decade has shown that the general populace will trade almost anything for the perception of convenience.
Like, it's already got microphones in the remote for the digital assistant functionality but you can't leave a remote sending 24/7 because it'll flatten the batteries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras? Yes. Worse - the governments don't even have to spend the time and money setting up these cameras, the consumer is buying and setting up more and more surveillance devices on themselves and those around them (Cellphones, Google Home, Alexa, Nest cameras, Ring cameras, etc. etc.) than ever. All of it piped into commu…
That's the thing that perplexes me? People buy internet connected cameras and microphones for everything from their phones, to their tv's, to their door bells, and then they get upset that their activities are law enforcement accessible on whatever company's servers? I mean, what did people think would happen? That's just the natural way to use that data. How else would such data be used? Maybe to find workman comp f…
They didn't, and they don't. We are conditioned to buy whatever's on offer.
I don't know how I feel about hidden surveillance cameras in public. I know I shouldn't have any expectation of privacy in public and all that, but CCTV cameras in plain view are a different matter. Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras? This makes me very uneasy. Whatever happened to the idea that democratic governments should be for the people? I'm sure…
I imagine perspective explains a lot of the behavior. San Diego's police department has been getting flack for streetlights with cameras in them for example, but San Diego's police department has also been having trouble hiring enough police officers. From the perspective of the PD the cameras probably /are/ for the people because the people are making the (currently) impossible demand that the police force be both e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment violates the FCRA, delete it immediately. It’s easy to make claims like this, but is it really a problem with the law if someone is making frivolous claims?
The general problem is power imbalance. Imagine I'm a journalist and want to report on crimes committed by a big company, or the government. Then I get a letter "you're on our radar, notice that we have a decently financed legal team and believe reporting to be a violation of ". Do I continue or do I drop the case? The only ones that can actually pull through now are media powerhouses with their own legal team (WaPo,…
And these are large organizations that also have financial relationships with and ownership of the big companies and governments that need to be reported on. WaPo is an extreme example of links to massive corporations, obscenely wealthy oligarchs, and heavy government contracting, but similar can be said about other large media companies (the number of which could be counted on your fingers.)
They're not going to save us from anything.
In a significantly less expensive variant here, it means strategic letter against public participation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The general problem is power imbalance. Imagine I'm a journalist and want to report on crimes committed by a big company, or the government. Then I get a letter "you're on our radar, notice that we have a decently financed legal team and believe reporting to be a violation of ". Do I continue or do I drop the case? The only ones that can actually pull through now are media powerhouses with their own legal team (WaPo,…
I fully appreciate that it can be very hard for smaller operations to deal with legal threats, but is this really a legislative problem as rahuldottech suggests? I have a really hard time imagining any reasonable legislative solution to this problem.
As for a solution - non-prejudicial defensive trials (I made that phrase up). Under this system, if someone sues you, you can at first ignore it. You'd get assigned a public defender, that would try to do a reasonably acceptable job defending you. You could cooperate with this defender, or ignore him. This defender will conduct a sort of mock trial. If you're found not guilty in this trial, then the lawsuit can't proceed, and you've lost no time or money. Only if you're found guilty (or infringing, or whatever outcome you don't like), can it then proceed to a real trial.
A sort of enhanced filter on whether a lawsuit has merit.
> In warning the site not to disclose the brochure, SSG’s attorney reportedly claimed the document is protected under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), though the notice did not point to any specific section of the law, which was enacted to regulate arms exports at the height of the Cold War. We really need an overhaul of all these old laws that were enacted for a completely different era, which a…
Your comment violates the FCRA, delete it immediately. It’s easy to make claims like this, but is it really a problem with the law if someone is making frivolous claims?