2 ms·

I'm of two minds when it comes to surveillance. I don't like that businesses, airports, etc do it but it is their property. I don't like that they can run video

I'm of two minds when it comes to surveillance. I don't like that businesses, airports, etc do it but it is their property. I don't like that they can run video feeds through software, either in real time or after the fact, to so easily find and track my every move. But again, its their property. Where the line is always drawn for me, at a minimum, is what they do with the video and who has access to it. Video should always be deleted when it is no longer reasonably needed. That timeline would be different for airports vs convenience stores, but I'd always expect the scale of days or weeks rather than months or years (or indefinitely). Maybe more importantly, surveillance video should never be shared without a lawful warrant, including clear descriptions of the limits to what is needed and why it is requested.

rainonmoon 2y ago
The complicating factor is that it isn't just "their property", it's an essential destination of many people's ability to function in society, which makes them adjacent to public utilities. If the water retailer which services your home started adding substances which could be used to track and identify their customers, you'd be pretty unhappy. Private ownership doesn't absolve an entity from public accountability, especially when there is extremely little option to not engage them.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  > The complicating factor is that it isn't just "their property", it's an essential destination of many people's ability to function in society That's a much bigger can of worms, one that reaches well beyond just airports. Many modern societies are extremely complex and assume individual access to a long list of resources and services. Its a pretty slippery slope though. People can absolutely choose not to fly, it isn't a basic requirement for life. The slippery slope leads to larger and larger government - as long as society continues to create implied requirements on the individual it seems reasonable to give more and more power to a central authority to ensure everyone can have that access. It sounds reasonable enough, though there isn't a good guardrail built in to avoid eventually building a totalitarian or communist state as so many things are now " basic necessities."

rainonmoon 2y ago

The complicating factor is that it isn't just "their property", it's an essential destination of many people's ability to function in society, which makes them adjacent to public utilities. If the water retailer which services your home started adding substances which could be used to track and identify their customers, you'd be pretty unhappy. Private ownership doesn't absolve an entity from public accountability, especially when there is extremely little option to not engage them.

_heimdall 2y ago
> The complicating factor is that it isn't just "their property", it's an essential destination of many people's ability to function in society That's a much bigger can of worms, one that reaches well beyond just airports. Many modern societies are extremely complex and assume individual access to a long list of resources and services. Its a pretty slippery slope though. People can absolutely choose not to fly, it isn't a basic requirement for life. The slippery slope leads to larger and larger government - as long as society continues to create implied requirements on the individual it seems reasonable to give more and more power to a central authority to ensure everyone can have that access. It sounds reasonable enough, though there isn't a good guardrail built in to avoid eventually building a totalitarian or communist state as so many things are now " basic necessities."