4 ms·

> 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 concern

> 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.
    - minimilian 5y ago
      > I don't know what problem you are trying to solve? The problem is that it is impossible to use public spaces without being recorded -- which is uncomfortable in itself -- and that various people who do not need to have access to the recordings -- which is extra uncomfortable. There is also the unnecessarily large potential for abuse. The default should be that noone has access, and, as far as I can see, it could be.
rodgerd 5y ago
It would be interesting to send these things to whatever the equivalent to NZ's office of the privacy comissioner is, for example, which would probably lead to sound oversight (until pressure to replace privacy-focused staff with compliant ones eventually kicked in).

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.
  - minimilian 5y ago
    > I don't know what problem you are trying to solve? The problem is that it is impossible to use public spaces without being recorded -- which is uncomfortable in itself -- and that various people who do not need to have access to the recordings -- which is extra uncomfortable. There is also the unnecessarily large potential for abuse. The default should be that noone has access, and, as far as I can see, it could be.

rodgerd 5y ago

It would be interesting to send these things to whatever the equivalent to NZ's office of the privacy comissioner is, for example, which would probably lead to sound oversight (until pressure to replace privacy-focused staff with compliant ones eventually kicked in).