4 ms·
The article says that the police had pledged to notify people of its use in the areas using leaflets and such, but failed to do so even when deploying the techn
by b_b 8y ago
The article says that the police had pledged to notify people of its use in the areas using leaflets and such, but failed to do so even when deploying the technology, so this is why it is labeled as secrecy.
- dosy 8y agothey had posters. > Lots of people didn’t seem to be noticing the posters at all… from a basic data protection point of view they’re not informing people well about what data they’re collecting or what is going on. i don't think data protection applies to state surveillance. if people knew what data the state collected about them, it would defeat the point.
- mtgx 8y agoYou're painting everything with a very broad brush. The "state" by and large has to be transparent to the public.
- dosy 8y agointeresting theories. not how i think of it. i think it could be more like to protect the privacy of other citizens whose data it collects, and the effectiveness of its intelligence, the state must be opaque to the public and selectively transparent to itself. Maybe one reason for the confusion /polarity on this topic, Is individuals think of privacy Through a framework of shame or something to hide, or nothing feel like sharing, But for states and organisations Privacy and secrecy is about maintaining Operational / strategic effectiveness.
- wjn0 8y ago> i don't think data protection applies to state surveillance. if people knew what data the state collected about them, it would defeat the point. What? The people the system is meant to protect shouldn't know about the system... at all?
- dosy 8y agoYes so they cant interfere with how it protects them, as another commenter noted. That parts of a system must be prevented from knowing/interfering with the inner workings of each other to protect the integrity of the whole is a general pronciple in many things Itl think.
- faceplanted 8y ago> if people knew what data the state collected about them, it would defeat the point. No, it wouldn't. The point of keeping data is to be able to detect unusual activity and cross reference information. Not to spy. The people are the country and they should be able to make an informed decision on what they want the government to be tracking about people.
- drusepth 8y ago>No, it wouldn't. The point of keeping data is to be able to detect unusual activity and cross reference information. Not to spy. The people are the country and they should be able to make an informed decision on what they want the government to be tracking about people. This ideal mindset breaks down for everyone other than "the good guys". The point of keeping what is tracked a secret is to prevent the-actual-people-you're-looking-for from just occluding that particular information. They can't really "opt in" to the kind of surveillance that is necessary to find predictive patterns in their behavior, because they (obviously) won't, and knowing what is tracked just tells them what to spend the extra effort hiding.
- dosy 8y agois it weird i think there's no such thing as privacy between state and individuals, and probably remains privacy between individuals? i accept this model of reality and actually think its sensible. personally i have no issue with that.
- ascorbic 8y agoThe article says that the information commissioner threatened legal action about this. I doubt she'd do that if the laws didn't apply.
- dosy 8y agoi think her political ambitions combined with consumer privacy being an electoral issue is a better theory