6 ms·

I often think this about Ring / permanent surveillance that exists now. Nobody can even be free in front of their own house without the threat of something ludi

I often think this about Ring / permanent surveillance that exists now. Nobody can even be free in front of their own house without the threat of something ludicrous happening to you and then it being on public record until the end of the internet. It's absolutely wild to me.

BurningFrog 3y ago
Like it or not, this is just the beginning. Fairly soon, all human life will be recorded.
- jsemrau 3y ago
  There should be a right to be forgotten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten
  - zgluck 3y ago
    HN/YCombinator does not honor this correctly from a EU law perspective. They don't allow you to delete your content. What they do offer is renaming your account. I'm salivating for this monster lawsuit once they they have enough EU exposure. It will probably be based in Germany. @switch007: They are investing in European companies. That's exposure. @walthamstow: Look up the "Right to erasure" aspect of the GDPR. (Why am I adding these things as edits? - I was rate-limited by HN/Ycombinator so I can't reply to your individual comments. When trying to post a reply I get the message "please slow down".)
    - switch007 3y ago
      Does HN have an EU company? If not, why should EU law apply? I’m mostly pro EU but I’m against countries/unions enforcing their laws beyond their borders.
    - 4RealFreedom 3y ago
      I don't know EU regulations well enough but isn't the ability to change your email address and scrub your about section enough? That would break any traceable links to you.
    - walthamstow 3y ago
      I live in a GDPR country and I don't really see the problem with HN's approach. They own the information you typed into their website, you own the privacy of your name. Why should they delete information you gave them, rather than just help you anonymise it?
      - xg15 3y ago
        > They own the information you typed into their website Not a lawyer, but is this actually the case? I thought the core of section 230 was about exactly that - that a site operator does not constitute a "publisher" for everything that is written on their site, if the site is just a "dumb" software that displays content written by the site's users - and therefore can't be made liable for anything written in user-generated content in the way they would be for editoral content. That would imply to me that the site operator does not own the user-generated content. Otherwise, you'd have a weird "have your cake and eat it too" situation where a site gets all the rights of ownership but none of the responsibilities. (... this doesn't even touch on the situation where that content violates intellectual property or contains PII.)
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Not a lawyer, but is this actually the case? Generally, no, they have a license, generally a broad, perpetual, non-exclusive license per the conditions attached to use of the site. not ownership. OTOH: > I thought the core of section 230 was about exactly that - that a site operator does not constitute a "publisher" for everything that is written on their site, if the site is just a "dumb" software that displays content written by the site's users - and therefore can't be made liable for anything written in user-generated content in the way they would be for editoral content. This is wrong on multiple levels; it specifically does not require that it be ”dumb” (neutral) software, which would have made them a distributor not a publisher under the law without Section 230; it specifically is to allow site operators (and other users) to do things that shape which content is presented without being subject to liability as a publisher. But that's about liability, not ownership. > (... this doesn't even touch on the situation where that content contains intellectual property or PII.) If its not IP, no one has ownership ; ownership of content only applies to IP of some kind.
  - orangecat 3y ago
    I agree that overexposure is a problem, but I can't support censorship of truthful information.
  - happytiger 3y ago
    We need a privacy bill of rights. Until then, based on how it’s going, the EU will lead on this for the foreseeable future so let’s hope they nail it. American intelligence agencies are complaining and lobbying hard about even the possibility of restriction in buying unlimited amounts of warrantless location tracking data on all their citizens at the moment as if it’s their God given right and without a thought to the monstrosity that could create… so… yea.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
teamspirit 3y ago
That's the exact reason I just ordered a locally recording doorbell and am finally replaced the last cloud based "smart" device in my home. I found myself actually changing my behavior and not saying certain things to my wife in front of it. The thought that every time I passed my own front door a stranger, that I placed there, was recording me was nauseating.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  I had a ring for about one week before I ripped it out and sent it back. I can’t understand how almost no one realized we went far worse than UK or Singapore’s surveillance state and did it on our own dollar voluntarily.
  - one_level_deep 3y ago
    [dead]
quantumfissure 3y ago
What's really scary about this, is that it can be edited by anyone before being posted online to make you either look like a victim or an instigator. It's then picked up by the media (which apparently are just influencers or Redditors now). People will always view that initial video as fact, even after the full evidence is posted. This can ruin the rest of your life, the damage has been done. While editing videos has always been an issue, it wasn't possible to gain notoriety, make money, or instigate racial/class/political/whatever warfare as easily as it is now. You just need to post an edited video and whatever side you want to instigate, you can.
mvncleaninst 3y ago
Those ring cameras are actually crazy. The fact that they are so normalized in the BA is kind of disturbing This lady just moved in next to me. Drives a leased luxury car. Doesn't interact with anyone, she just put up a ring camera (on an apartment door) and doesn't go outside I absolutely can't stand people who put up all of this cringey privacy invading IOT shit, in a relatively nice area on top of that
- eertami 3y ago
  In Switzerland those cameras are illegal, since there is a right to privacy for all persons. Security cameras can exist on private land or where the need is deemed to be absolutely necessary (eg, high security or high value areas where it is in the public interest to have a camera) - but filming the street from your house fails these tests. Same for dashcams. People like to make this "oh but you're in public so why can't I film you" argument and it's so strange to me that this is something people actively want - to not be allowed privacy from other peoples pictures and recordings.
  - bandyaboot 3y ago
    > People like to make this "oh but you're in public so why can't I film you" argument and it's so strange to me that this is something people actively want - to not be allowed privacy from other peoples pictures and recordings. I don’t find it at all surprising that there’s disagreement about this. You have two entirely reasonable and important principles that are butting up against each other. Personal freedom is important and so is personal privacy. Of course there’s going to be controversy and differences from place to place and culture to culture on where the dividing line should exist.
    - mvncleaninst 3y ago
      > You have two entirely reasonable and important principles that are butting up against each other How exactly is being allowed to record someone else in public without their consent an "important principle"? Especially if the non-consenting person is the subject of the recording?
Eumenes 3y ago
Ring cameras are wired and you can set them up to only turn on when you aren't home. Thats what I do. I also don't have neighbors and live in the woods.

BurningFrog 3y ago

Like it or not, this is just the beginning. Fairly soon, all human life will be recorded.

jsemrau 3y ago
There should be a right to be forgotten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten
- zgluck 3y ago
  HN/YCombinator does not honor this correctly from a EU law perspective. They don't allow you to delete your content. What they do offer is renaming your account. I'm salivating for this monster lawsuit once they they have enough EU exposure. It will probably be based in Germany. @switch007: They are investing in European companies. That's exposure. @walthamstow: Look up the "Right to erasure" aspect of the GDPR. (Why am I adding these things as edits? - I was rate-limited by HN/Ycombinator so I can't reply to your individual comments. When trying to post a reply I get the message "please slow down".)
  - switch007 3y ago
    Does HN have an EU company? If not, why should EU law apply? I’m mostly pro EU but I’m against countries/unions enforcing their laws beyond their borders.
  - 4RealFreedom 3y ago
    I don't know EU regulations well enough but isn't the ability to change your email address and scrub your about section enough? That would break any traceable links to you.
  - walthamstow 3y ago
    I live in a GDPR country and I don't really see the problem with HN's approach. They own the information you typed into their website, you own the privacy of your name. Why should they delete information you gave them, rather than just help you anonymise it?
    - xg15 3y ago
      > They own the information you typed into their website Not a lawyer, but is this actually the case? I thought the core of section 230 was about exactly that - that a site operator does not constitute a "publisher" for everything that is written on their site, if the site is just a "dumb" software that displays content written by the site's users - and therefore can't be made liable for anything written in user-generated content in the way they would be for editoral content. That would imply to me that the site operator does not own the user-generated content. Otherwise, you'd have a weird "have your cake and eat it too" situation where a site gets all the rights of ownership but none of the responsibilities. (... this doesn't even touch on the situation where that content violates intellectual property or contains PII.)
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Not a lawyer, but is this actually the case? Generally, no, they have a license, generally a broad, perpetual, non-exclusive license per the conditions attached to use of the site. not ownership. OTOH: > I thought the core of section 230 was about exactly that - that a site operator does not constitute a "publisher" for everything that is written on their site, if the site is just a "dumb" software that displays content written by the site's users - and therefore can't be made liable for anything written in user-generated content in the way they would be for editoral content. This is wrong on multiple levels; it specifically does not require that it be ”dumb” (neutral) software, which would have made them a distributor not a publisher under the law without Section 230; it specifically is to allow site operators (and other users) to do things that shape which content is presented without being subject to liability as a publisher. But that's about liability, not ownership. > (... this doesn't even touch on the situation where that content contains intellectual property or PII.) If its not IP, no one has ownership ; ownership of content only applies to IP of some kind.
- orangecat 3y ago
  I agree that overexposure is a problem, but I can't support censorship of truthful information.
- happytiger 3y ago
  We need a privacy bill of rights. Until then, based on how it’s going, the EU will lead on this for the foreseeable future so let’s hope they nail it. American intelligence agencies are complaining and lobbying hard about even the possibility of restriction in buying unlimited amounts of warrantless location tracking data on all their citizens at the moment as if it’s their God given right and without a thought to the monstrosity that could create… so… yea.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

teamspirit 3y ago

That's the exact reason I just ordered a locally recording doorbell and am finally replaced the last cloud based "smart" device in my home. I found myself actually changing my behavior and not saying certain things to my wife in front of it. The thought that every time I passed my own front door a stranger, that I placed there, was recording me was nauseating.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
I had a ring for about one week before I ripped it out and sent it back. I can’t understand how almost no one realized we went far worse than UK or Singapore’s surveillance state and did it on our own dollar voluntarily.
- one_level_deep 3y ago
  [dead]

quantumfissure 3y ago

What's really scary about this, is that it can be edited by anyone before being posted online to make you either look like a victim or an instigator. It's then picked up by the media (which apparently are just influencers or Redditors now). People will always view that initial video as fact, even after the full evidence is posted. This can ruin the rest of your life, the damage has been done. While editing videos has always been an issue, it wasn't possible to gain notoriety, make money, or instigate racial/class/political/whatever warfare as easily as it is now. You just need to post an edited video and whatever side you want to instigate, you can.

mvncleaninst 3y ago

Those ring cameras are actually crazy. The fact that they are so normalized in the BA is kind of disturbing This lady just moved in next to me. Drives a leased luxury car. Doesn't interact with anyone, she just put up a ring camera (on an apartment door) and doesn't go outside I absolutely can't stand people who put up all of this cringey privacy invading IOT shit, in a relatively nice area on top of that

eertami 3y ago
In Switzerland those cameras are illegal, since there is a right to privacy for all persons. Security cameras can exist on private land or where the need is deemed to be absolutely necessary (eg, high security or high value areas where it is in the public interest to have a camera) - but filming the street from your house fails these tests. Same for dashcams. People like to make this "oh but you're in public so why can't I film you" argument and it's so strange to me that this is something people actively want - to not be allowed privacy from other peoples pictures and recordings.
- bandyaboot 3y ago
  > People like to make this "oh but you're in public so why can't I film you" argument and it's so strange to me that this is something people actively want - to not be allowed privacy from other peoples pictures and recordings. I don’t find it at all surprising that there’s disagreement about this. You have two entirely reasonable and important principles that are butting up against each other. Personal freedom is important and so is personal privacy. Of course there’s going to be controversy and differences from place to place and culture to culture on where the dividing line should exist.
  - mvncleaninst 3y ago
    > You have two entirely reasonable and important principles that are butting up against each other How exactly is being allowed to record someone else in public without their consent an "important principle"? Especially if the non-consenting person is the subject of the recording?

Eumenes 3y ago

Ring cameras are wired and you can set them up to only turn on when you aren't home. Thats what I do. I also don't have neighbors and live in the woods.