4 ms·
Can you elaborate? I disagree with OP that 3 was the the most egregious event, I agree that it's questionable for the article to use the two specific images con
by operator-name 4y ago
Can you elaborate? I disagree with OP that 3 was the the most egregious event, I agree that it's questionable for the article to use the two specific images containing people so plainly and without further censorship, perpetuating the invasion of privacy for the sake of a more captivating article.
3. The MIT Technology Review gets a hold of these images and decides to publish them on the Internet for everyone to see, just to get more clicks on their article. This feels like the most egregious privacy violation in the sequence.
- quantified 4y agoThe two pictures that include people have their faces removed. Yes they contain people, they don't contain a useful way to connect the photo to any real person. I suppose if you are that person you could recognize yourself. Appears to be in Asia from the TV set contents. "Just to get more clicks on their article" reads to me as a flame on media, I don't detect that motivation. If that was me on the toilet I'd be pissed at Roomba and their trust in bogus contractors, but since you can't tell it's me I don't really care. Maybe that's just me.