8 ms·

I get why this could be problematic under the wrong context. But if I have video footage of someone approaching my door, not knocking and just looking aroud to

I get why this could be problematic under the wrong context. But if I have video footage of someone approaching my door, not knocking and just looking aroud to then leave; and I'm given the option to track if that person shows up again in future video footage, you bet I would use that option. This is not because I'm paranoic and I think right away that anyone showing up to my door will murder or rob me, but because said person already exhibited suspicious activity around my private property. Why would I take for granted that this person was simply lost or innocently looking around? If that's the case, then my camera would never see them again. But if they show up a second time, I want to know that.

daveFNbuck 8y ago
So under this system if I walk up to your door mistakenly before realizing I'm at the wrong place, the police will be alerted any time I walk past a house.
- laumars 8y ago
  While that is a valid concern about the abuse of such technology, I couldn't see that ever happening if just because it would generate far too many false positives to render the technology useful (not to mention that most police forces in the world are under funded so they're not going to be the slightest bit interested in people walking past a house). This kind of alerting is a bit like any of the automated alarms we have in IT (be it Nagios, CloudWatch, or whatever). They're necessary to tell us when things have gone wrong if they go off too frequently then they'll just get ignored. In fact there was a parable about this as well, called "The boy who cried wolf".
  - dvtrn 8y ago
    I can see how members of some communities might feel like the technology opens them up to more scrutiny than they probably deserve from an overzealous do-gooder (or busybody, depending on your perspective). Even if statistically the likelihood is low, I wouldn't say the fears of what this technology enables and could result in for someone simply being in the wrong neighborhood 'while black' are overly complicated or historically irrelevant/unfounded for certain areas of the US. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/us/airbnb-black-women-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/us/airbnb-black-women-pol...
    - laumars 8y ago
      Like I said, I agree it’s a valid concern. My point was that for this kind of tech to be useful, it wouldn’t want to be that zealous with alerting otherwise the system would get flooded with false positives. That means door to door sales people, preachers, the postman, milk man, kids at Halloween, carol singers, etc. Given this is an automatic sensor, people would just quickly just ignore it without even checking the footage - this even before any racial or social prejudices had chance to kick in. We see this all the time with software monitoring solutions in IT what sysadmins ignore if they are too sensitive so my comment here isn’t without precedence either. But essentially we are both arguing that an overly sensitive alarm is a bad thing - just from different perspectives. You make the point about discrimination and I make the point about the alerting being worthless in a sea of ignored alarms. Ultimately we’re both skeptical
      - dvtrn 8y ago
        But essentially we are both arguing that an overly sensitive alarm is a bad thing You might be. I'm not. I never once said it's a bad thing, or described it as overly sensitive, to be fair. Just that I could see how certain communities might look at the technology and what it enables and have good reason to be incredulous about how certain neighborhood actors will use it. That's about a nuanced as I can possibly get on the topic without trying to argue in favor or against these devices in full, or taking any absolute position.
- richrichardsson 8y ago
  Ring their doorbell. When they answer, tell them "Hi, this isn't the house I was looking for, but you've got that surveillance system in place, so I don't want to be registered as 'suspicious'. OK, sorry not sorry for wasting your time, goodbye."
  - Klonoar 8y ago
    ...for every house? I don't go up to random houses and ring their doorbells to begin with, because nobody does that anymore.
    - ilikepi 8y ago
      Nobody? Where I live (suburbs, New England, USA), it's pretty common to be visited in person by local political candidates and/or volunteers during campaign season. I doubt this is in any way unique to my neighborhood.
      - Klonoar 8y ago
        Campaign season is an outlier, and I've had that happen... well, I can count the number of times on one hand, since a decade ago.
      - JohnFen 8y ago
        OK, nobody except salespeople (politicians going door to door electioneering are really being salespeople).
    - richrichardsson 8y ago
      Did you think I was suggesting doing this to every house with the system? Not my intention at all. I was replying to hypothetical "walked up to the wrong house" scenario.
  - drewmol 8y ago
    Me: Presses doorbell button Ring: Please provide a valid email address to continue. Me: Turns to leave Ring: Sorry we missed you! Please state your reason for visit and someone will reach out to you. Please provide a valid email address to continue. Ring: Warning! This entry attempt have been recorded. An unauthorized entry attempt will be reported to the cloud and local law enforcment.
- chaostheory 8y ago
  If systems like this are abused, police will just treat it like most burglar alarm systems; it will most likely be ignored.
nepeckman 8y ago
I think it gets more problematic when the data is shared and human judgement is eliminated. What happens if someone is lost in a neighborhood and accidentally displays "suspicious" behavior in multiple locations? They are then logged in a database as a suspicious person and potentially pointed out to law enforcement as a suspect without any chance to explain themselves. I don't think this technology would be quite as bad if the data was kept local to a house, but as is there could be so many terrible consequences.
- jklinger410 8y ago
  >What happens if someone is lost in a neighborhood and accidentally displays "suspicious" behavior in multiple locations? They are then logged in a database as a suspicious person and potentially pointed out to law enforcement as a suspect without any chance to explain themselves. Where is the issue here? That we provide suspicious activity reports, or that our police SEEMINGLY can't reliably deal with those reports?
  - drb91 8y ago
    Why is this data worth reporting at all? What good can come from it?
  - llukas 8y ago
    Being lost is not suspicious activity. Feeding false positives to law enforcement causes them not to work what is important or to redirect resources to filtering reports.
    - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
      False positive can very well lead to innocent people being beaten for "looking suspicious".
  - ohithereyou 8y ago
    If you have no fear that the police will cause you harm when they get a report of suspicious activity involving you then your life has been very privileged.
drb91 8y ago
It is paranoid to think that the people outside your house want to rob or kill you. It is not paranoid to see that the “wrong context” is just a matter of time.
- Shivetya 8y ago
  There is no more paranoia in having a camera security feature than locking your door. if people are checking out your house repeatedly then you might have a problem so a precaution is fine. considering that it is easy to surf news sites and find video captured by home surveillance systems showing people taking packages, trying to get in, or having broke in, it is not unreasonable to install such a device. the issue is that the data would be available to the police without the homeowners permission. people coming to the door have no expectation of privacy on property they do not own and if need be a simple sign on the property can declare as such.
  - gambler 8y ago
    There is a huge difference between locking your door and setting up a CCTV system at your house. Locking doors (in normal residential areas) is mostly a signal of intent. You signal to everyone you don't want them entering your house, unless you've given them permission/key. It also sets things up so that no one can enter your house and then claim they didn't know you didn't want them there. Thirdly, it sets thing up so that people who want to enter your house without a key will have to act in an obviously suspicious way. If someone breaks a window or starts breaking your door with an axe, any neighbour or passer by will know something weird is going on. None of this applies to CCTV systems. >considering that it is easy to surf news sites and find video This is confirmation bias in action. You need statistics on your residential area to make decisions around home security.
  - drb91 8y ago
    Well, a lock does a great job at not letting people into my apartment. Why not put the camera inside the door? It is trivial to find videos of people committing crimes, but that does not imply anything about its likelihood. Meanwhile the state has an excellent record of abuse of power for ends that are unrelated to the reasons given for the power. See: the use of “terrorism” to justify militarizing domestic law enforcement, or parallel reconstruction. The issue is that this idea that centralization of information will somehow avoid the pattern of abuse of centralized power in the hands of people with perverse incentives. This video stream should be considered private property IMHO which requires a warrant like anything else.
freehunter 8y ago
I work in information security and basically every IS system does exactly that. Tracks potentially suspicious behavior but doesn't act on it unless it becomes a pattern or something bad happens. As soon as something bad happens, the system has a history of all the suspicious behavior that actor had done before the actual crime. It doesn't matter if it's an IP address scanning your network then hitting one system, then logging in and scooping up all your data versus a human staring at your house for a few days then walking up while you're not home and stealing your TV. You should know if someone is scoping out your perimeter in preparation for a breach, and post-breach you should know the history of the attack. I know nothing about Next Door but from reading the comments it seems like the problem is having this information in untrained hands.
- dvtrn 8y ago
  I know nothing about Next Door but from reading the comments it seems like the problem is having this information in untrained hands. I'd go with 'undisciplined' hands versus 'untrained' hands, while admitting I'm unsure of the best way to articulate the difference in a manner that is empathetic towards the desires of residents who just want to feel like they're safe on their block but also addresses a certain pragmatic reality of what happens when 'good intentions' results in a patrol car pulling up next to you in your own neighborhood. The reasonable expectation of your neighbors would be to assume they're normal people like you, not necessarily that they be trained in surveillance, criminal profiling or tracking persons of interest but instead disciplined in their vigilance as thoughtful and watchful community members who act when there is something demonstrably out of the norm that could affect the neighborhood. Again, not sure how I can best articulate that thought, or even what steps a community has to take to avoid everyone "narcing" on everyone else for boring, mundane behavior (say, like for instance, retreading your steps through the neighborhood after you lost your phone or some other item the night before) while still remaining active enough to do the right thing when you see someone you know isn't your neighbor picking up packages off someone's doorstep.
JohnFen 8y ago
"if I have video footage of someone approaching my door, not knocking and just looking aroud to then leave; and I'm given the option to track if that person shows up again in future video footage, you bet I would use that option." This sort of thing is one of the reasons why I fear these systems. A world where this is common is a world where it's no longer safe to take a stroll through your own neighborhood.
- chaostheory 8y ago
  A society of persistent, constant hi-tech surveillance already exists. It's called Singapore. I also wouldn't want to live in that world. There are many problems with it, but not being safe for "a stroll through your own neighborhood" is not a problem for that world.
  - JohnFen 8y ago
    "not being safe for "a stroll through your own neighborhood" is not a problem for that world." I think that depends on what you consider "safe". Or perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying...
    - chaostheory 8y ago
      My definition is that you're not going to be hassled by anyone, government included.
      - JohnFen 8y ago
        That sounds fair, although personally, I count being under surveillance as being hassled. This is because when I believe that I'm under surveillance, it makes me more cautious in terms of what I say and do, and puts me under stress.
        chaostheory 8y ago
        Yes, that is a known negative of that type of society. Returning back to the subject, people on a whole are physically safe in that society as long as you follow their draconian rules. That is a benefit of a total surveillance society.
pdkl95 8y ago
> I'm given the option to track if that person shows up again in future video footage, you bet I would use that option. Most people would use that option if they had the opportunity; tracking potential troublemakers has obvious benefits. The problem is you are not being given the option "to track [a] person". You're being given the option to record video and apply an automated tool to identify "likely faces" and as way to compare those images against a local database using a definition of similarity that is poorly specified[1], extremely complex, and opaque/unexplained. Jumping right thinking of this as "tracking a person" ignores the many layers of metaphor shear between the desired goal and what the actual implementation does. Metaphor shear is what you experience when you realize that interface doesn't match what is actually happening. The metaphor was lost somewhere in the hundreds of layers of abstraction connecting input to output. The map is not the territory. Efficient and powerful tools are very useful, but they also let you efficiently shoot yourself in the foot in powerful new ways. Since metaphor shear is about the error between an expected ideal and actual measured reality, it compounds across layers of abstraction similar to how experimental error loses precision with each calculation. Any particular layer of abstraction is probably fine in isolation, but the interface metaphor loses significant digits as more and more layers are added. If intellectual labor is going to be surrendered to a device, we need to be very clear and specific in what we are surrendering and what the device is expected to do. (Video essayist Kyle Kallgren does a much better job of explaining[2] the problem of metaphor shear, using examples from sci-fi [Black Mirror, HHGttG, R.U.R.]) [1] poor in the context of trying to track someone. I'm sure the face matching algorithm is very well specified with respect to matching images of faces. The poorly specified part is when "matching images of faces" becomes "tracking someone" (what does "tracking" mean? How are probabilities about matching faces mapped to identifying "that person"?) [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr9_DcO6G3A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr9_DcO6G3A
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
stevenicr 8y ago
If this system kept the info locally at your place, and had sane defaults for erasing the data ( 30 days?) - with options, I'd be more comfortable with that. If you or some grandma install a cloud system that auto sends my info to multiple third parties I would think that is worse than creepy. I could see grubhub delivery people end up at wrong adresses, a system detecting unusual arrival at 9pm, send alert, the system pulls other data about this person, combines it. This is shared with multiple groups of people. Now humans look through it and see her going to the sex toy store earlier in the day and the abortion clinic and the (insert non-popular religious place here) - and whatever. All it takes is one person in multiple groups to get heated about this person's lifetsyle or 'suspicious activity' to put out a pull over and find some reason to get more info, write a ticket, fine, get them to rack up other issues. In an extreme situation you end up one of the cog wheels that started a Sandra Bland situation because a suspicions wrong address was given via GPS to a delivery driver. Even without wrongful deaths, having people look into your life like that and make jokes about you or whatever is pretty lame. At least when this happens with Msoft's one drive, one could say that someone agreed to the terms of lack of privacy with the corp. Not that I would buy that as 100% true in 100% of most cases, but at least then it could be argued.

daveFNbuck 8y ago

So under this system if I walk up to your door mistakenly before realizing I'm at the wrong place, the police will be alerted any time I walk past a house.

laumars 8y ago
While that is a valid concern about the abuse of such technology, I couldn't see that ever happening if just because it would generate far too many false positives to render the technology useful (not to mention that most police forces in the world are under funded so they're not going to be the slightest bit interested in people walking past a house). This kind of alerting is a bit like any of the automated alarms we have in IT (be it Nagios, CloudWatch, or whatever). They're necessary to tell us when things have gone wrong if they go off too frequently then they'll just get ignored. In fact there was a parable about this as well, called "The boy who cried wolf".
- dvtrn 8y ago
  I can see how members of some communities might feel like the technology opens them up to more scrutiny than they probably deserve from an overzealous do-gooder (or busybody, depending on your perspective). Even if statistically the likelihood is low, I wouldn't say the fears of what this technology enables and could result in for someone simply being in the wrong neighborhood 'while black' are overly complicated or historically irrelevant/unfounded for certain areas of the US. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/us/airbnb-black-women-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/us/airbnb-black-women-pol...
  - laumars 8y ago
    Like I said, I agree it’s a valid concern. My point was that for this kind of tech to be useful, it wouldn’t want to be that zealous with alerting otherwise the system would get flooded with false positives. That means door to door sales people, preachers, the postman, milk man, kids at Halloween, carol singers, etc. Given this is an automatic sensor, people would just quickly just ignore it without even checking the footage - this even before any racial or social prejudices had chance to kick in. We see this all the time with software monitoring solutions in IT what sysadmins ignore if they are too sensitive so my comment here isn’t without precedence either. But essentially we are both arguing that an overly sensitive alarm is a bad thing - just from different perspectives. You make the point about discrimination and I make the point about the alerting being worthless in a sea of ignored alarms. Ultimately we’re both skeptical
    - dvtrn 8y ago
      But essentially we are both arguing that an overly sensitive alarm is a bad thing You might be. I'm not. I never once said it's a bad thing, or described it as overly sensitive, to be fair. Just that I could see how certain communities might look at the technology and what it enables and have good reason to be incredulous about how certain neighborhood actors will use it. That's about a nuanced as I can possibly get on the topic without trying to argue in favor or against these devices in full, or taking any absolute position.
richrichardsson 8y ago
Ring their doorbell. When they answer, tell them "Hi, this isn't the house I was looking for, but you've got that surveillance system in place, so I don't want to be registered as 'suspicious'. OK, sorry not sorry for wasting your time, goodbye."
- Klonoar 8y ago
  ...for every house? I don't go up to random houses and ring their doorbells to begin with, because nobody does that anymore.
  - ilikepi 8y ago
    Nobody? Where I live (suburbs, New England, USA), it's pretty common to be visited in person by local political candidates and/or volunteers during campaign season. I doubt this is in any way unique to my neighborhood.
    - Klonoar 8y ago
      Campaign season is an outlier, and I've had that happen... well, I can count the number of times on one hand, since a decade ago.
    - JohnFen 8y ago
      OK, nobody except salespeople (politicians going door to door electioneering are really being salespeople).
  - richrichardsson 8y ago
    Did you think I was suggesting doing this to every house with the system? Not my intention at all. I was replying to hypothetical "walked up to the wrong house" scenario.
- drewmol 8y ago
  Me: Presses doorbell button Ring: Please provide a valid email address to continue. Me: Turns to leave Ring: Sorry we missed you! Please state your reason for visit and someone will reach out to you. Please provide a valid email address to continue. Ring: Warning! This entry attempt have been recorded. An unauthorized entry attempt will be reported to the cloud and local law enforcment.
chaostheory 8y ago
If systems like this are abused, police will just treat it like most burglar alarm systems; it will most likely be ignored.

nepeckman 8y ago

I think it gets more problematic when the data is shared and human judgement is eliminated. What happens if someone is lost in a neighborhood and accidentally displays "suspicious" behavior in multiple locations? They are then logged in a database as a suspicious person and potentially pointed out to law enforcement as a suspect without any chance to explain themselves. I don't think this technology would be quite as bad if the data was kept local to a house, but as is there could be so many terrible consequences.

jklinger410 8y ago
>What happens if someone is lost in a neighborhood and accidentally displays "suspicious" behavior in multiple locations? They are then logged in a database as a suspicious person and potentially pointed out to law enforcement as a suspect without any chance to explain themselves. Where is the issue here? That we provide suspicious activity reports, or that our police SEEMINGLY can't reliably deal with those reports?
- drb91 8y ago
  Why is this data worth reporting at all? What good can come from it?
- llukas 8y ago
  Being lost is not suspicious activity. Feeding false positives to law enforcement causes them not to work what is important or to redirect resources to filtering reports.
  - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
    False positive can very well lead to innocent people being beaten for "looking suspicious".
- ohithereyou 8y ago
  If you have no fear that the police will cause you harm when they get a report of suspicious activity involving you then your life has been very privileged.

drb91 8y ago

It is paranoid to think that the people outside your house want to rob or kill you. It is not paranoid to see that the “wrong context” is just a matter of time.

Shivetya 8y ago
There is no more paranoia in having a camera security feature than locking your door. if people are checking out your house repeatedly then you might have a problem so a precaution is fine. considering that it is easy to surf news sites and find video captured by home surveillance systems showing people taking packages, trying to get in, or having broke in, it is not unreasonable to install such a device. the issue is that the data would be available to the police without the homeowners permission. people coming to the door have no expectation of privacy on property they do not own and if need be a simple sign on the property can declare as such.
- gambler 8y ago
  There is a huge difference between locking your door and setting up a CCTV system at your house. Locking doors (in normal residential areas) is mostly a signal of intent. You signal to everyone you don't want them entering your house, unless you've given them permission/key. It also sets things up so that no one can enter your house and then claim they didn't know you didn't want them there. Thirdly, it sets thing up so that people who want to enter your house without a key will have to act in an obviously suspicious way. If someone breaks a window or starts breaking your door with an axe, any neighbour or passer by will know something weird is going on. None of this applies to CCTV systems. >considering that it is easy to surf news sites and find video This is confirmation bias in action. You need statistics on your residential area to make decisions around home security.
- drb91 8y ago
  Well, a lock does a great job at not letting people into my apartment. Why not put the camera inside the door? It is trivial to find videos of people committing crimes, but that does not imply anything about its likelihood. Meanwhile the state has an excellent record of abuse of power for ends that are unrelated to the reasons given for the power. See: the use of “terrorism” to justify militarizing domestic law enforcement, or parallel reconstruction. The issue is that this idea that centralization of information will somehow avoid the pattern of abuse of centralized power in the hands of people with perverse incentives. This video stream should be considered private property IMHO which requires a warrant like anything else.

freehunter 8y ago

I work in information security and basically every IS system does exactly that. Tracks potentially suspicious behavior but doesn't act on it unless it becomes a pattern or something bad happens. As soon as something bad happens, the system has a history of all the suspicious behavior that actor had done before the actual crime. It doesn't matter if it's an IP address scanning your network then hitting one system, then logging in and scooping up all your data versus a human staring at your house for a few days then walking up while you're not home and stealing your TV. You should know if someone is scoping out your perimeter in preparation for a breach, and post-breach you should know the history of the attack. I know nothing about Next Door but from reading the comments it seems like the problem is having this information in untrained hands.

dvtrn 8y ago
I know nothing about Next Door but from reading the comments it seems like the problem is having this information in untrained hands. I'd go with 'undisciplined' hands versus 'untrained' hands, while admitting I'm unsure of the best way to articulate the difference in a manner that is empathetic towards the desires of residents who just want to feel like they're safe on their block but also addresses a certain pragmatic reality of what happens when 'good intentions' results in a patrol car pulling up next to you in your own neighborhood. The reasonable expectation of your neighbors would be to assume they're normal people like you, not necessarily that they be trained in surveillance, criminal profiling or tracking persons of interest but instead disciplined in their vigilance as thoughtful and watchful community members who act when there is something demonstrably out of the norm that could affect the neighborhood. Again, not sure how I can best articulate that thought, or even what steps a community has to take to avoid everyone "narcing" on everyone else for boring, mundane behavior (say, like for instance, retreading your steps through the neighborhood after you lost your phone or some other item the night before) while still remaining active enough to do the right thing when you see someone you know isn't your neighbor picking up packages off someone's doorstep.

JohnFen 8y ago

"if I have video footage of someone approaching my door, not knocking and just looking aroud to then leave; and I'm given the option to track if that person shows up again in future video footage, you bet I would use that option." This sort of thing is one of the reasons why I fear these systems. A world where this is common is a world where it's no longer safe to take a stroll through your own neighborhood.

chaostheory 8y ago
A society of persistent, constant hi-tech surveillance already exists. It's called Singapore. I also wouldn't want to live in that world. There are many problems with it, but not being safe for "a stroll through your own neighborhood" is not a problem for that world.
- JohnFen 8y ago
  "not being safe for "a stroll through your own neighborhood" is not a problem for that world." I think that depends on what you consider "safe". Or perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying...
  - chaostheory 8y ago
    My definition is that you're not going to be hassled by anyone, government included.
    - JohnFen 8y ago
      That sounds fair, although personally, I count being under surveillance as being hassled. This is because when I believe that I'm under surveillance, it makes me more cautious in terms of what I say and do, and puts me under stress.
      - chaostheory 8y ago
        Yes, that is a known negative of that type of society. Returning back to the subject, people on a whole are physically safe in that society as long as you follow their draconian rules. That is a benefit of a total surveillance society.

pdkl95 8y ago

> I'm given the option to track if that person shows up again in future video footage, you bet I would use that option. Most people would use that option if they had the opportunity; tracking potential troublemakers has obvious benefits. The problem is you are not being given the option "to track [a] person". You're being given the option to record video and apply an automated tool to identify "likely faces" and as way to compare those images against a local database using a definition of similarity that is poorly specified[1], extremely complex, and opaque/unexplained. Jumping right thinking of this as "tracking a person" ignores the many layers of metaphor shear between the desired goal and what the actual implementation does. Metaphor shear is what you experience when you realize that interface doesn't match what is actually happening. The metaphor was lost somewhere in the hundreds of layers of abstraction connecting input to output. The map is not the territory. Efficient and powerful tools are very useful, but they also let you efficiently shoot yourself in the foot in powerful new ways. Since metaphor shear is about the error between an expected ideal and actual measured reality, it compounds across layers of abstraction similar to how experimental error loses precision with each calculation. Any particular layer of abstraction is probably fine in isolation, but the interface metaphor loses significant digits as more and more layers are added. If intellectual labor is going to be surrendered to a device, we need to be very clear and specific in what we are surrendering and what the device is expected to do. (Video essayist Kyle Kallgren does a much better job of explaining[2] the problem of metaphor shear, using examples from sci-fi [Black Mirror, HHGttG, R.U.R.]) [1] poor in the context of trying to track someone. I'm sure the face matching algorithm is very well specified with respect to matching images of faces. The poorly specified part is when "matching images of faces" becomes "tracking someone" (what does "tracking" mean? How are probabilities about matching faces mapped to identifying "that person"?) [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr9_DcO6G3A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr9_DcO6G3A

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

stevenicr 8y ago

If this system kept the info locally at your place, and had sane defaults for erasing the data ( 30 days?) - with options, I'd be more comfortable with that. If you or some grandma install a cloud system that auto sends my info to multiple third parties I would think that is worse than creepy. I could see grubhub delivery people end up at wrong adresses, a system detecting unusual arrival at 9pm, send alert, the system pulls other data about this person, combines it. This is shared with multiple groups of people. Now humans look through it and see her going to the sex toy store earlier in the day and the abortion clinic and the (insert non-popular religious place here) - and whatever. All it takes is one person in multiple groups to get heated about this person's lifetsyle or 'suspicious activity' to put out a pull over and find some reason to get more info, write a ticket, fine, get them to rack up other issues. In an extreme situation you end up one of the cog wheels that started a Sandra Bland situation because a suspicions wrong address was given via GPS to a delivery driver. Even without wrongful deaths, having people look into your life like that and make jokes about you or whatever is pretty lame. At least when this happens with Msoft's one drive, one could say that someone agreed to the terms of lack of privacy with the corp. Not that I would buy that as 100% true in 100% of most cases, but at least then it could be argued.