51–60 of 470 posts
A little annoyed, this seems like is has nothing to do with the ICE arrests ... > The city suspended its Flock system because city officials could not guarantee they wouldn’t be forced to release data collected by those devices someday, she said. Key part is " someday ". Seems like the article is implying that flock may have shared this data with ICE which led to the arrests... but there is no proof supporting this..…
I think we need to revise our understanding of expectation of privacy. The 'you have no expectation of privacy when you are outside' bit was formed before we had everything recording us and before face recognition could track us. At the very least I think any kind of face recognition should require probable cause.
The line here is a little different. I could point a camera out my window and record every license plate that drives by my house, and that would be allowed because its recording public activities, and the data I collect would be private—its mine from my camera.
The question here is if a public/government agency pays a private company to setup cameras in public, for the benefit of the public, then should that data collected by those cameras not also be public?
The courts seem to agree that it should be public, and I fail to see why it shouldn't be. Maybe I should read the opposition briefs on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a reason we don't have people recently affected by a tragedy write policy regarding that tragedy, in their heightened emotional state.
[flagged]
What have you heard or seen that gives you that impression?
According to the article “University of Washington researchers released a report Oct. 21 showing federal immigration agencies like ICE and Border Patrol had accessed the data of at least 18 Washington cities, often without their police departments’ knowing”
It seems plausible that the local government came to realize that unauthorized use of Flock data was happening elsewhere in the state and decided to act. These sort of privacy intrusions start off with the veneer of best intentions but when abuse is uncovered, people tend to get real.
What did they think would happen? Installing surveillance systems to monitor people is acceptable, as long as they're only used against the majority? I don't understand the logic here.
Seems like something virtually everyone believes, and all that changes is where they draw the line of balance between intrusion and safety.
What did they think would happen? Installing surveillance systems to monitor people is acceptable, as long as they're only used against the majority? I don't understand the logic here.
[flagged]
[flagged]
> The term is considered to be an antisemitic trope
> common ancestry or heritage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_and_soil
> Blood and soil (German: Blut und Boden, pronounced [ˈbluːt ʊnt ˈboːdn̩] ⓘ) is a nationalist phrase and concept of a racially defined national body ("Blood") united with a settlement area ("Soil"). Originating in the German völkisch movement, it was used extensively by Nazi Germany