4 ms·
Just the sheer scale of data collection by the Ring public-private partnership is worrisome already. Some of us worry about the amount of information held by Fa
by HarryHirsch 7y ago
Just the sheer scale of data collection by the Ring public-private partnership is worrisome already. Some of us worry about the amount of information held by Facebook, even those that do not have a Facebook account. The same principle applies here.
- throwawaysea 7y agoIf it is legally filmed footage (for example on public spaces or in a private residence), then there is no legitimate expectation of privacy.
- HarryHirsch 7y agoThere's the tiny issue that storage became so cheap over the last 20 years that recordings can now be kept indefinitely. In the past you had a CCTV camera, and you could store maybe a month's worth of movie (on tapes, in a safe), until you had to overwrite it. Now you just keep filming and have a never forgotten record of who lives in the neighbourhood. And if Facebook runs it though its face recognition system they get names, friends and other preferences. That completely changes the nature of CCTV recordings. The law just hasn't caught up with it, also because of prolific lobbying by the usual bigdata actors.
- homonculus1 7y agoExpectation of privacy was defined in an era when recording was expensive, on the assumption that there was a certain degree of anonymity in public just from the sheer impossibility of tracking everybody. There is no reason that our rights should be limited to what was found necessary to protect in the past. There must be a new category of expectation of transience, that Jeff Bezos and the FBI won't keep a permanent record of your every waking moment.