2 ms·
This is definitely a point the author could have touched on more. How will environments without this purported widespread adoption of surveillance technologies
by josters 4y ago
This is definitely a point the author could have touched on more.
How will environments without this purported widespread adoption of surveillance technologies react to an increase of these 'luxury surveillance' items? Will they also gradually accept more (government-imposed) surveillance into their lives? Maybe even demand it? Or is acceptance of surveillance culturally biased?
- adolph 4y agoI think the thesis is that positive consent of less-privacy leads to less-privacy for people who have less power of consent, possibly because the expectation of privacy is a social construct of the more powerful and influential. To respond to your thought-question about adoption of surv-tech in places where it isn't common: Taken outside a privacy context, in many small towns locking the doors to one's car or house is not a norm. I grew up that way. When I visited my big city cousins the emphasis on locking doors struck me as odd. If one lives in such fear then one has a larger problem than locking a door or not. Another privacy