2 ms·

What solution do you propose for private businesses? Having cameras is sensible, if not a must. People are abusive, burglars break in, staff steal, etc.

casey2 2y ago
You clearly didn't read the associated paper. Employees stealing from a business is a far better outcome than letting people with power abuse it. Worst case in the former: A business fails. Bad case in the later: The business succeeds and perpetuates it's abusive practices Worst case in the later: mass genocide and the total extinction of the human race.
- averageRoyalty 2y ago
  The person whose story I was replying to did not link a paper. What about the most likely case - people use the cameras for their intended purpose and life continues on as normal?
nomilk 2y ago
I don't have a solution (and would be mindful any 'solution' could be unreasonably burdensome, unenforceable, or have unintended consequences). I just point out that the past couple of decades have seen a dramatic change how easy it is for people to be spied on, often in sensitive environments and unbeknown to them.
raxxorraxor 2y ago
You can install cameras in a way that you only film the parts relevant for potential break ins. In my country this is demanded by law. So not directing cameras on public streets or other properties. Aside from that, camera necessity isn't real, affordable cameras for mass deployment are perhaps not recent, but there certainly were other ways in the past to handle crime.
- averageRoyalty 2y ago
  There are other ways than motorised vehicles to travel between cities too, however they're inefficient. Cameras are an incredibly good way to handle crime. Modern cameras have excellent object detection, can notify on unexpected movements in zones, and often come with backup batteries and offline storage. Many can read numberplates in the dark, and many crimes are solved by a neighbours camera catching a car driving off from the crime scene. The context here is around a boss potentiall watching their employee via camera (with lewd inference). Directing cameras internal to the business wouldn't change this issue.

casey2 2y ago

You clearly didn't read the associated paper. Employees stealing from a business is a far better outcome than letting people with power abuse it. Worst case in the former: A business fails. Bad case in the later: The business succeeds and perpetuates it's abusive practices Worst case in the later: mass genocide and the total extinction of the human race.

averageRoyalty 2y ago
The person whose story I was replying to did not link a paper. What about the most likely case - people use the cameras for their intended purpose and life continues on as normal?

nomilk 2y ago

I don't have a solution (and would be mindful any 'solution' could be unreasonably burdensome, unenforceable, or have unintended consequences). I just point out that the past couple of decades have seen a dramatic change how easy it is for people to be spied on, often in sensitive environments and unbeknown to them.

raxxorraxor 2y ago

You can install cameras in a way that you only film the parts relevant for potential break ins. In my country this is demanded by law. So not directing cameras on public streets or other properties. Aside from that, camera necessity isn't real, affordable cameras for mass deployment are perhaps not recent, but there certainly were other ways in the past to handle crime.

averageRoyalty 2y ago
There are other ways than motorised vehicles to travel between cities too, however they're inefficient. Cameras are an incredibly good way to handle crime. Modern cameras have excellent object detection, can notify on unexpected movements in zones, and often come with backup batteries and offline storage. Many can read numberplates in the dark, and many crimes are solved by a neighbours camera catching a car driving off from the crime scene. The context here is around a boss potentiall watching their employee via camera (with lewd inference). Directing cameras internal to the business wouldn't change this issue.