3 ms·

This is a lot of words to say that retailers share evidence with police and have access to evidence that other retailers have shared. Very few if any of them e

by treis 6y ago

This is a lot of words to say that retailers share evidence with police and have access to evidence that other retailers have shared. Very few if any of them explain why this is a bad thing.

tyingq 6y ago
There were several examples of access being granted to professors, a lobbyist firm, a drug treatment center, random private citizens, etc.
imglorp 6y ago
I'll try. Our civilization--our contract with each other and the government--includes a reasonable expectation of privacy and of freedom from unreasonable searches: basic human rights. A court would be needed to violate privacy. It was sufficient in the distant past to use that kind of language before tech. With tech, you have a massive data wake as you go about an ordinary life, largely open source for anyone to buy, share, and aggregate. Nobody needs to tail you or subpoena your records. The aggregation from widely disparate sources allows connections and inferences as well as allowing inverse searches: fishing expeditions. Remember how Target was figuring out who was pregnant before they even knew? That was 2012 and it was only one store. Now you can add in many, many aggregations like license plates and face rec and credit history, assistant devices recording every utterance, browsing and lingering behaviors in stores with cameras. All corporate assets. It's in the government's interest to buy and sell along with the retailers. Not only don't you need a court order to look into someone's mind, but it's a valuable commodity now.
- treis 6y ago
  To be blunt, this is just more words with few of them explaining why any of this stuff is bad. Where is the actual real world harm? Everyone leaving a data wake, as you describe it, is a good thing if you're not committing crimes and/or are the victim of one. As an example, we had case locally where an elderly couple were found dead from arson in their house. The cops arrested the Son and he spent 9 months in jail until the geofence warrant came back from Google. There was a hit in the house 20 minutes before the 911 call. Son is released and the real killer arrested. Without that data wake that story (probably) ends up with the son in jail for life and the real killer free. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ajc.com/news/man-no-longer-charged-in-parents-gruesome-deaths-in-atlanta-new-suspect-arrested/OWCX5CVVF5FBZGZAGYA3A5FCZM/%3foutputType=amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ajc.com/news/man-no-longer-...
  - imglorp 6y ago
    Are you asking why humans need privacy? If you've done nothing wrong then nothing to hide? So yes open society might stop a crime. But at what cost? Big essay [0] below. But my top points are: * The Panopticon experiment shows that constant surveillance has deleterious effects on all people, not just "bad" ones. It is a form of control. [1] * Authoritarian regimes everywhere deploy information apparatus to control their people. Eg the Stasi [2], and now everywhere. Do you really want to participate in a global, authoritarian, totalitarian society? That's what we're building here. "Those Who Would Give Up Liberty for Safety, Deserve Neither" 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument 1. https://exploringyourmind.com/the-panopticon-effect-someones-watching-you/ https://exploringyourmind.com/the-panopticon-effect-someones... 2. https://www.bstu.de/en/the-stasi/introduction/ https://www.bstu.de/en/the-stasi/introduction/
srtjstjsj 6y ago
> Legal observers and Constitutional scholars point to a number of potential legal implications raised by public-private partnerships in policing. These include concerns over privacy and the lack of oversight and judicial review of policing activities when undertaken by the private sector on behalf of public police agencies, but also extend to worries that the privatization of information gathering by police might result in the privatization of public law enforcement priorities and practices. Do corporate retail interests, at least in part, determine police priorities in Albuquerque? The BlueLeaks documents suggest this may be the case.
jcrawfordor 6y ago
Here's an easy one: APD has been credibly accused of systematically harassing police abolition and other leftist activists. It is well established that they were (somewhat openly) cooperating with an armed militia group during the recent civil unrest, closely related to a group who's member would shoot a protester several days later with suspicious motivations. If you don't trust the police department not to abuse information to intimidate their critics, which we don't, you don't want them to have this kind of unmonitored, unregulated access to private intelligence.

by treis 6y ago

This is a lot of words to say that retailers share evidence with police and have access to evidence that other retailers have shared. Very few if any of them explain why this is a bad thing.

tyingq 6y ago

There were several examples of access being granted to professors, a lobbyist firm, a drug treatment center, random private citizens, etc.

imglorp 6y ago

I'll try. Our civilization--our contract with each other and the government--includes a reasonable expectation of privacy and of freedom from unreasonable searches: basic human rights. A court would be needed to violate privacy. It was sufficient in the distant past to use that kind of language before tech. With tech, you have a massive data wake as you go about an ordinary life, largely open source for anyone to buy, share, and aggregate. Nobody needs to tail you or subpoena your records. The aggregation from widely disparate sources allows connections and inferences as well as allowing inverse searches: fishing expeditions. Remember how Target was figuring out who was pregnant before they even knew? That was 2012 and it was only one store. Now you can add in many, many aggregations like license plates and face rec and credit history, assistant devices recording every utterance, browsing and lingering behaviors in stores with cameras. All corporate assets. It's in the government's interest to buy and sell along with the retailers. Not only don't you need a court order to look into someone's mind, but it's a valuable commodity now.

treis 6y ago
To be blunt, this is just more words with few of them explaining why any of this stuff is bad. Where is the actual real world harm? Everyone leaving a data wake, as you describe it, is a good thing if you're not committing crimes and/or are the victim of one. As an example, we had case locally where an elderly couple were found dead from arson in their house. The cops arrested the Son and he spent 9 months in jail until the geofence warrant came back from Google. There was a hit in the house 20 minutes before the 911 call. Son is released and the real killer arrested. Without that data wake that story (probably) ends up with the son in jail for life and the real killer free. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ajc.com/news/man-no-longer-charged-in-parents-gruesome-deaths-in-atlanta-new-suspect-arrested/OWCX5CVVF5FBZGZAGYA3A5FCZM/%3foutputType=amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ajc.com/news/man-no-longer-...
- imglorp 6y ago
  Are you asking why humans need privacy? If you've done nothing wrong then nothing to hide? So yes open society might stop a crime. But at what cost? Big essay [0] below. But my top points are: * The Panopticon experiment shows that constant surveillance has deleterious effects on all people, not just "bad" ones. It is a form of control. [1] * Authoritarian regimes everywhere deploy information apparatus to control their people. Eg the Stasi [2], and now everywhere. Do you really want to participate in a global, authoritarian, totalitarian society? That's what we're building here. "Those Who Would Give Up Liberty for Safety, Deserve Neither" 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument 1. https://exploringyourmind.com/the-panopticon-effect-someones-watching-you/ https://exploringyourmind.com/the-panopticon-effect-someones... 2. https://www.bstu.de/en/the-stasi/introduction/ https://www.bstu.de/en/the-stasi/introduction/

srtjstjsj 6y ago

> Legal observers and Constitutional scholars point to a number of potential legal implications raised by public-private partnerships in policing. These include concerns over privacy and the lack of oversight and judicial review of policing activities when undertaken by the private sector on behalf of public police agencies, but also extend to worries that the privatization of information gathering by police might result in the privatization of public law enforcement priorities and practices. Do corporate retail interests, at least in part, determine police priorities in Albuquerque? The BlueLeaks documents suggest this may be the case.

jcrawfordor 6y ago

Here's an easy one: APD has been credibly accused of systematically harassing police abolition and other leftist activists. It is well established that they were (somewhat openly) cooperating with an armed militia group during the recent civil unrest, closely related to a group who's member would shoot a protester several days later with suspicious motivations. If you don't trust the police department not to abuse information to intimidate their critics, which we don't, you don't want them to have this kind of unmonitored, unregulated access to private intelligence.