3 ms·
I waded through those articles - and whilst I don't like the idea of 'cameras' everywhere, didn't actually spot the alluded to smoking gun that was going to blo
by goldcd 7y ago
I waded through those articles - and whilst I don't like the idea of 'cameras' everywhere, didn't actually spot the alluded to smoking gun that was going to blow the whole conspiracy open.
Obviously aspects like "black people getting reported as suspicious" is unwelcome, but this isn't a problem with Ring/cameras. I presume the people clicking the suspicious button are the same people traditionally calling in 'tips' whenever they spot somebody with a tan. (Or if you're in the middle of Baltimore it's black residents reporting black people being suspicious). But - I've no real idea/evidence, so I'll leave that.
What did appear to be deliberately misconstrued, was the police being directed to reach out on social media to their residents, to improve residents opting in to share their footage.
If "the government" asks me to provide a video-feed, my hackles would go up. If your local cop says "I'm trying to reduce crime near you and your footage would help me" - well.. am I going to tell them I'm not going to help?
- aaroninsf 7y agoThe answer depends a lot on what your personal view of the police is and vice versa. Of broader interest: the neighbor agreed to "help" and your family's movements are henceforth subject to surveillance without consent.
- goldcd 7y agoAgreed. Wouldn't want the camera in my home, or pointed at me whilst I work - but I'm OK with "me walking by" Basically, I've accepted the neighbour is already allowed to see me as I walk by - this is just improving the efficiency of surveillance, not changing it. I wouldn't have objected if they'd decided they wanted to start an old-school "twitching curtains" neighbourhood watch scheme - I might not have joined, but I wouldn't be feeling violates.