3 ms·
It's about correlation, potential risk, and the relationship of the citizen and the state. Bottom line, we citizens should be able to tell the state, in theory
by a3n 11y ago
It's about correlation, potential risk, and the relationship of the citizen and the state.
Bottom line, we citizens should be able to tell the state, in theory our servant and not our master, to do or not do whatever we want. That does not seem to be the case with surveillance, to the extant that we don't even really know what they're doing, modulo Snowden and the like.
The convenience store can't correlate its data with the university's camera data, decide you're a person of interest and ramp up surveillance of your phone and internet use. And they can't arrest you for questioning or jail you, particularly if you point out to people that the correlation between the two cameras and the telecom companies has merely been done.
It's different.
- a3n 11y ago> The convenience store can't correlate its data with the university's camera data, decide you're a person of interest and ramp up surveillance of your phone and internet use. I think I just described how tracking advertising works today, except for the cameras. How soon before businesses' cameras are money makers in advertising networks? Maybe we'll all have them in our cars. Maybe Google glass or whatever fills in that void. Glance at a Slim Jim and see ads for bulk purchases from Amazon for the next few days. "Get the Variety Pak! Beef. Pork. Llama. A surprise Mystery Meat in every Pak!"