3 ms·
I held this same opinion until recently but I've come to realize that it only disallows citizens from recording in public -- that is, if this opinion were adopt
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
I held this same opinion until recently but I've come to realize that it only disallows citizens from recording in public -- that is, if this opinion were adopted in policy, the police could use said policy against me to prevent my filming of police activity.
I'd also like to opt-out of having cameras everywhere in public but the fact of the matter is they are here to stay. Additionally, most of the cameras which capture your image in public are not cameras which you installed and they're not cameras which you have the authority to remove. Adding your own cameras to the mix is functionally equivalent to exercising your freedom to speak; really, to document, in this context.
- archgoon 3y agoDavid Brin wrote on this in "The Transparent Society". From the Amazon summary: > David Brin is worried, but not just about privacy. He fears that society will overreact to these technologies by restricting the flow of information, frantically enforcing a reign of secrecy. Such measures, he warns, won't really preserve our privacy. Governments, the wealthy, criminals, and the techno-elite will still find ways to watch us. But we'll have fewer ways to watch them. We'll lose the key to a free society: accountability. Note this was published in 1999, so one can argue about how far we went in either direction. I think we mostly ended up with a collective shrug.
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y agoAt the least we could have legislation to prevent police from creating mass surveillance networks, ie keep the process limited to individuals.