4 ms·
transparently: Government surveillance in Amsterdam is not done secretly. legally: The citizens of Amsterdam have not chosen to elect officials who would make
by smt88 2y ago
transparently: Government surveillance in Amsterdam is not done secretly.
legally: The citizens of Amsterdam have not chosen to elect officials who would make surveillance illegal in the city.
Your example is not the same context we're discussing here because it's on private property.
But even if it were, the freedom from surveillance that you describe is impossible, unrealistic, and not even precedented. Even before motion photography, there were people like the Pinkertons stalking private citizens and surveilling them for nefarious actors and debt collectors.
- euroderf 2y agoI meant for my example to include public areas too, like ordinary streets and squares. My error. Odd that you mention Pinkerton. Certainly surveillance has been with us forever. But nowadays the threat is from systems like those of China, where 24/7 face ID can in principle track individuals from door to door. This is the kind of threat scenario where I would like to see surveillance of public areas put on a leash. EDIT: To quote Apple from another context, "Security and privacy guarantees are strongest when they are entirely technically enforceable, which means it must be possible to constrain and analyze all the components that critically contribute to the guarantees of the overall [system]."