6 ms·

I live in a community like yours and IMO you're just hurting yourself. Your home is probably already covered by everyone else's cameras and they can just pull t

I live in a community like yours and IMO you're just hurting yourself. Your home is probably already covered by everyone else's cameras and they can just pull the footage from them. It seems like the only person that doesn't have access to recordings of their own home now is you.

buscoquadnary 4y ago
Actually across the street from my house is a fence and so I only have neighbors on the sides, because of that my home is not being videoed. But also because for me the minor inconvenience of not constantly videotaping my house is overwhelmed by the opportunity to stand on a principle. Sure it doesn't do much to Amazon or anyone else but at least I know I am not participating in the Orwellian surveillance state. It also gives me the opportunity that when people notice and ask about it, to inform them about it. A lot of people didn't realize that this information was available to the government to use at their discretion as well.
jjulius 4y ago
OP already responded to your comment, but I'll bite and argue that, in your hypothetical, they're not hurting themselves. First, they're taking a stand based on principal. That they're successful in doing so is a win for them. Second, to your point, they're still covered in case of theft because their "home is probably already covered by everyone else's cameras and they can just pull the footage from them". Assuming they're on good terms with their neighbors, this request should be pretty easy and quick to fulfill. If they're not, local PD can still get a warrant for the footage.
- chickenpotpie 4y ago
  > First, they're taking a stand based on principal. I'm all for that, but taking a stand doesn't benefit the individual. Taking a stand is for the benefit of society and requires the collaboration of society > Assuming they're on good terms with their neighbors, this request should be pretty easy and quick to fulfill. If they're not, local PD can still get a warrant for the footage. yes and that process is just objectively much more difficult than pulling the data from your own camera, which takes all of five seconds versus an order from a judge. That means they're life is worse.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    >That means they're life is worse. It doesn't, though. If they are aware of the tradeoff (that in order to have the privacy they want, it will take longer to get any footage they may need), and they find that the tradeoff is worth it, then their life is not "worse". After all, that's why they made the decision to begin with - because they believe that their life is worse with them than without.
    - chickenpotpie 4y ago
      But it's not more privacy, that's the entire basis of what I'm saying. In this hypothetical, you're already monitored by cameras. The only difference is that the subject doesn't own them. The privacy is the exact same in both.
      - jjulius 4y ago
        By not taking part in it, they are not contributing to something they oppose. It's a moral choice for them. My fault for not making that clearer.
      - nmeagent 4y ago
        One person making such a principled choice may encourage another, who may encourage another, and so on. If enough of us make principled choices we don't necessarily have to live like this.

buscoquadnary 4y ago

Actually across the street from my house is a fence and so I only have neighbors on the sides, because of that my home is not being videoed. But also because for me the minor inconvenience of not constantly videotaping my house is overwhelmed by the opportunity to stand on a principle. Sure it doesn't do much to Amazon or anyone else but at least I know I am not participating in the Orwellian surveillance state. It also gives me the opportunity that when people notice and ask about it, to inform them about it. A lot of people didn't realize that this information was available to the government to use at their discretion as well.

jjulius 4y ago

OP already responded to your comment, but I'll bite and argue that, in your hypothetical, they're not hurting themselves. First, they're taking a stand based on principal. That they're successful in doing so is a win for them. Second, to your point, they're still covered in case of theft because their "home is probably already covered by everyone else's cameras and they can just pull the footage from them". Assuming they're on good terms with their neighbors, this request should be pretty easy and quick to fulfill. If they're not, local PD can still get a warrant for the footage.

chickenpotpie 4y ago
> First, they're taking a stand based on principal. I'm all for that, but taking a stand doesn't benefit the individual. Taking a stand is for the benefit of society and requires the collaboration of society > Assuming they're on good terms with their neighbors, this request should be pretty easy and quick to fulfill. If they're not, local PD can still get a warrant for the footage. yes and that process is just objectively much more difficult than pulling the data from your own camera, which takes all of five seconds versus an order from a judge. That means they're life is worse.
- jjulius 4y ago
  >That means they're life is worse. It doesn't, though. If they are aware of the tradeoff (that in order to have the privacy they want, it will take longer to get any footage they may need), and they find that the tradeoff is worth it, then their life is not "worse". After all, that's why they made the decision to begin with - because they believe that their life is worse with them than without.
  - chickenpotpie 4y ago
    But it's not more privacy, that's the entire basis of what I'm saying. In this hypothetical, you're already monitored by cameras. The only difference is that the subject doesn't own them. The privacy is the exact same in both.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      By not taking part in it, they are not contributing to something they oppose. It's a moral choice for them. My fault for not making that clearer.
    - nmeagent 4y ago
      One person making such a principled choice may encourage another, who may encourage another, and so on. If enough of us make principled choices we don't necessarily have to live like this.