5 ms·
Question. How this principle can coexist with the idea of "surveillance is bad"? Because that's mostly to collect publicly available information. Is it bad beca
by euske 9y ago
Question. How this principle can coexist with the idea of "surveillance is bad"? Because that's mostly to collect publicly available information. Is it bad because it's done by a government? It's possible to set up a bunch of privately owned cameras in a city and keep filming people. Is it the association of infos that makes it bad and not mere collection? Is it okay if it doesn't have a personally identifiable information (but who knows what one can make out of them)? I don't know what I should think of this.
- Semiapies 9y agoThis thought process always bewilders me. Whenever it comes up that government agencies monitor our emails and phone calls, someone, as if on cue, always pipes up that that's totally no different from people posting on their Facebook timeline and other absolutely mind-bogglingly bad equivalences. You, however, go the extra mile, here. How about you explain exactly how accessing published information on a public website is like building a network of cameras to monitor a city with?
- Dylan16807 9y agoSurveillance is bad but it is also not hacking. Boom. Easy to have both opinions. I would love to limit corporate databases, but not via letting website owners declare arbitrary use to be criminal.