7 ms·

It's the automation that worries me. I'm not too concerned about proper companies using CCTV to record, as it's well managed and gets deleted unseen, unless som

It's the automation that worries me. I'm not too concerned about proper companies using CCTV to record, as it's well managed and gets deleted unseen, unless something happens. I'm not too concerned about the police pulling those CCTV pictures to investigate a crime either. Things like ring doorbells on the other hand should be cracked down - the number of times I see people in the UK posting pictures of public areas on facebook is shocking, but if they're just sat there, being deleted unless pulled for a proper reason, that's fine too. What really does concern me is when things like image recognition come into the picture. A corporation can't montior me by paying someone to sift through CCTV pictures. They can montior me by using automation to process everything though. This is a good thing, how successful it is remains to be seen.

jacquesm 5y ago
The other matter of concern is how many of these bits of data end up on servers outside of the EU, if you want something done about it you are essentially powerless.
- tentacleuno 5y ago
  > if you want something done about it you are essentially powerless. I wouldn't say people are "essentially powerless", especially in the EU with GDPR. I can't speak for other parts of the world of course (CCPA is the only thing remotely similar to GDPR that I'm aware of in America).
- gunapologist99 5y ago
  At the end of the day, does it even really matter where the data is stored? It shouldn't be recorded in the first place.
  - disabled 5y ago
    Not always true. It depends on the circumstances. That being said, I will never get a Ring doorbell or something similar. I also believe that the tech companies should not be allowed to hoard data about people’s private or public lives at all.
    - vkou 5y ago
      Should CC processors be allowed to hard data about people's purchase and spending? What about merchants? If yes, why them, and not tech firms?
      - whatshisface 5y ago
        What about no?
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        No, absolutely not.
        vkou 5y ago
        So, a store can't record that you bought something from them.
        mikem170 5y ago
        That's the way it used to work.
        bob_doggo 5y ago
        Why should they record that?
      - behindsight 5y ago
        Is there an equivalent to the AML/CFT regulations?
  - tentacleuno 5y ago
    I don't think that's true. We had abusive neighbours who damaged our belongings before so we essentially had to install a CCTV system. They were coax cameras hooked up to a DVR with no internet functionality (and that data had to be overridden regularly due to the size of the disk). At the end of the day, if you're under threat of damage to your things, I would recommend a CCTV system. You won't see me recommending Amazon's offerings (or any other "cloud" solution rolls eyes), though.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  If a law says a company doing buisness in EU may not track users with face recognition, then you surely could charge them, if they merely outsource to outside of the EU as they are still the ones ordering the illegal surveillance.
- tobylane 5y ago
  I believe you can complain to your local data commissioner, eg https://ico.org.uk https://ico.org.uk. They should cover this and the right to have an automated decision reviewed manually.
  - noja 5y ago
    .uk is not European
    - dbetteridge 5y ago
      Not the EU* Unless I'm mistaken the UK hasn't drifted off and become and independent island chain separate from Europe
      - shlurpy 5y ago
        European means different things in different contexts. Sometimes it is used as the adjective form of EU member state. Discussion of an aarticle in which Germany is calling for a Eurpean ban is such a context, since that is the form the title is using.
        vinay427 5y ago
        It doesn’t help that this has been codified into the names of various organizations, like the Council of Europe (ECHR, etc.), EEA, EU, and others that all refer to different subsets of countries on the continent. I suppose this renders any straightforward alternative relatively limited in scope even if a term to refer to one of these memberships was agreed upon.
        brigandish 5y ago
        > Sometimes it is used as the adjective form of EU member state. Sometimes people make mistakes, sometimes outright errors. Sometimes people use language to push ideas they like, such as "the EU is Europe" and thus not being a part of the EU is somehow an offence against nature. I'm not sure why these mistakes, errors, and mendacities should go unchallenged and uncorrected. Every use of "Europe" in that article could be replaced with "EU" and it would be the better for it.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I wouldn't care about that at all. A foreign government has far less possibility for abuse. It shouldn't happen either, but the domestic player should be the focus here. Mass surveillance doesn't improve anything aside from paranoia. We don't suffer crime or terrorism waves, so why even increase security at all? For some property damage? I get that data protection get in the way sometimes, but for this case I want to be meticulously excluded. Any yes, I have been victim of vandalism multiple times. Doesn't mean I want to be surveilled forever. There is no absolute security.
minimilian 5y ago
> I'm not too concerned about proper companies using CCTV to record, as it's well managed and gets deleted unseen, unless something happens. I'm not too concerned about the police pulling those CCTV pictures to investigate a crime either. Question: Wouldn't it be reasonable to have a law that recordings of public areas for the sake of investigation of serious crime be immediately encrypted such that they could only be decrypted by a court order? (Such a law might be enforced by random inspections and huge fines.)
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  Probably not reasonable. You will get into problems deciding whose keys to use, key distribution, people not being able to use their equipment correctly... But banning devices from automatically posting everything to the manufacturer's computers without any user intervention is easy, and quite probably enough for the near future.
  - minimilian 5y ago
    > You will get into problems deciding whose keys to use How about a secret-sharing scheme that requires keys from a certain number of judges?
    - KarlKemp 5y ago
      I don't know what problem you are trying to solve? To stay with the example: Germany already bans CCTV except for specific locations such as train stations. People follow the law reasonably well, and the police just does it because any law-breaking would be revealed at trial. I'm sure there are ways for them to set up temporary cameras for specific purposes. Maybe it would be nice to restrict the possibility of distribution, but I can't remember any cases of abuse. Now id yo could restrict the police's use of databases to send hate mail to anyone left of the clan (as in Bernie Sanders, not as in left over), that would be a worthy endeavor. But if I have a choice, I'll take a law with teeth and a prosecutor who cares over technology.
      - 5y ago
chiefalchemist 5y ago
> Things like ring doorbells on the other hand should be cracked down - the number of times I see people in the UK posting pictures of public areas on facebook is shocking. While I do share your concern, the current rule of thumb - at least in the USA - is that privacy is not expected in public spaces. I can see that since, by definition, that's what makes public public.
- iso1631 5y ago
  But in the UK it's not allowed, however nor is that "not allowed" enforced. Alas US cultural hegemony pushes strongly the the rest of the world, especially the western anglosphere
- simiones 5y ago
  Sure, but perhaps this could be seen to come under the purview of stalking legislation, or a similar principle?
- shlurpy 5y ago
  There is a difference between incidentally public (someone can see you, snap a picture, but only on occasion) and surveilence public (someone can track your location and activity continously in public). If someone does the latter, and I know about it, I can still sue them for harassment, and maybe get a restraining order. Can I get a restraining order against Nest or similar? I understand that this might not be the law, but I'm interested in if it should be.
  - chiefalchemist 5y ago
    Again, I agree and empathize. But the counter argument would be "Harassed by a doorbell, how so?" and "I have a right to protect my property and my family. My camera allows this to happen." Unless the legal definition of "in public" changes, the surveillance will continue.
    - iso1631 5y ago
      In the UK we have guidance about how to use CCTV to protect your property and family https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-usi... For example "you should make sure that the information recorded is used only for the purpose for which your system was installed (for example it will not be appropriate to share any recordings on social media sites)" This is of course routinely ignored and unenforced

jacquesm 5y ago

The other matter of concern is how many of these bits of data end up on servers outside of the EU, if you want something done about it you are essentially powerless.

tentacleuno 5y ago
> if you want something done about it you are essentially powerless. I wouldn't say people are "essentially powerless", especially in the EU with GDPR. I can't speak for other parts of the world of course (CCPA is the only thing remotely similar to GDPR that I'm aware of in America).
gunapologist99 5y ago
At the end of the day, does it even really matter where the data is stored? It shouldn't be recorded in the first place.
- disabled 5y ago
  Not always true. It depends on the circumstances. That being said, I will never get a Ring doorbell or something similar. I also believe that the tech companies should not be allowed to hoard data about people’s private or public lives at all.
  - vkou 5y ago
    Should CC processors be allowed to hard data about people's purchase and spending? What about merchants? If yes, why them, and not tech firms?
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      What about no?
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      No, absolutely not.
      - vkou 5y ago
        So, a store can't record that you bought something from them.
        mikem170 5y ago
        That's the way it used to work.
        bob_doggo 5y ago
        Why should they record that?
    - behindsight 5y ago
      Is there an equivalent to the AML/CFT regulations?
- tentacleuno 5y ago
  I don't think that's true. We had abusive neighbours who damaged our belongings before so we essentially had to install a CCTV system. They were coax cameras hooked up to a DVR with no internet functionality (and that data had to be overridden regularly due to the size of the disk). At the end of the day, if you're under threat of damage to your things, I would recommend a CCTV system. You won't see me recommending Amazon's offerings (or any other "cloud" solution rolls eyes), though.
hutzlibu 5y ago
If a law says a company doing buisness in EU may not track users with face recognition, then you surely could charge them, if they merely outsource to outside of the EU as they are still the ones ordering the illegal surveillance.
tobylane 5y ago
I believe you can complain to your local data commissioner, eg https://ico.org.uk https://ico.org.uk. They should cover this and the right to have an automated decision reviewed manually.
- noja 5y ago
  .uk is not European
  - dbetteridge 5y ago
    Not the EU* Unless I'm mistaken the UK hasn't drifted off and become and independent island chain separate from Europe
    - shlurpy 5y ago
      European means different things in different contexts. Sometimes it is used as the adjective form of EU member state. Discussion of an aarticle in which Germany is calling for a Eurpean ban is such a context, since that is the form the title is using.
      - vinay427 5y ago
        It doesn’t help that this has been codified into the names of various organizations, like the Council of Europe (ECHR, etc.), EEA, EU, and others that all refer to different subsets of countries on the continent. I suppose this renders any straightforward alternative relatively limited in scope even if a term to refer to one of these memberships was agreed upon.
      - brigandish 5y ago
        > Sometimes it is used as the adjective form of EU member state. Sometimes people make mistakes, sometimes outright errors. Sometimes people use language to push ideas they like, such as "the EU is Europe" and thus not being a part of the EU is somehow an offence against nature. I'm not sure why these mistakes, errors, and mendacities should go unchallenged and uncorrected. Every use of "Europe" in that article could be replaced with "EU" and it would be the better for it.
raxxorrax 5y ago
I wouldn't care about that at all. A foreign government has far less possibility for abuse. It shouldn't happen either, but the domestic player should be the focus here. Mass surveillance doesn't improve anything aside from paranoia. We don't suffer crime or terrorism waves, so why even increase security at all? For some property damage? I get that data protection get in the way sometimes, but for this case I want to be meticulously excluded. Any yes, I have been victim of vandalism multiple times. Doesn't mean I want to be surveilled forever. There is no absolute security.

minimilian 5y ago

> I'm not too concerned about proper companies using CCTV to record, as it's well managed and gets deleted unseen, unless something happens. I'm not too concerned about the police pulling those CCTV pictures to investigate a crime either. Question: Wouldn't it be reasonable to have a law that recordings of public areas for the sake of investigation of serious crime be immediately encrypted such that they could only be decrypted by a court order? (Such a law might be enforced by random inspections and huge fines.)

marcosdumay 5y ago
Probably not reasonable. You will get into problems deciding whose keys to use, key distribution, people not being able to use their equipment correctly... But banning devices from automatically posting everything to the manufacturer's computers without any user intervention is easy, and quite probably enough for the near future.
- minimilian 5y ago
  > You will get into problems deciding whose keys to use How about a secret-sharing scheme that requires keys from a certain number of judges?
  - KarlKemp 5y ago
    I don't know what problem you are trying to solve? To stay with the example: Germany already bans CCTV except for specific locations such as train stations. People follow the law reasonably well, and the police just does it because any law-breaking would be revealed at trial. I'm sure there are ways for them to set up temporary cameras for specific purposes. Maybe it would be nice to restrict the possibility of distribution, but I can't remember any cases of abuse. Now id yo could restrict the police's use of databases to send hate mail to anyone left of the clan (as in Bernie Sanders, not as in left over), that would be a worthy endeavor. But if I have a choice, I'll take a law with teeth and a prosecutor who cares over technology.
    - 5y ago

chiefalchemist 5y ago

> Things like ring doorbells on the other hand should be cracked down - the number of times I see people in the UK posting pictures of public areas on facebook is shocking. While I do share your concern, the current rule of thumb - at least in the USA - is that privacy is not expected in public spaces. I can see that since, by definition, that's what makes public public.

iso1631 5y ago
But in the UK it's not allowed, however nor is that "not allowed" enforced. Alas US cultural hegemony pushes strongly the the rest of the world, especially the western anglosphere
simiones 5y ago
Sure, but perhaps this could be seen to come under the purview of stalking legislation, or a similar principle?
shlurpy 5y ago
There is a difference between incidentally public (someone can see you, snap a picture, but only on occasion) and surveilence public (someone can track your location and activity continously in public). If someone does the latter, and I know about it, I can still sue them for harassment, and maybe get a restraining order. Can I get a restraining order against Nest or similar? I understand that this might not be the law, but I'm interested in if it should be.
- chiefalchemist 5y ago
  Again, I agree and empathize. But the counter argument would be "Harassed by a doorbell, how so?" and "I have a right to protect my property and my family. My camera allows this to happen." Unless the legal definition of "in public" changes, the surveillance will continue.
  - iso1631 5y ago
    In the UK we have guidance about how to use CCTV to protect your property and family https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-usi... For example "you should make sure that the information recorded is used only for the purpose for which your system was installed (for example it will not be appropriate to share any recordings on social media sites)" This is of course routinely ignored and unenforced