4 ms·
This is disturbing. It's bad enough that one might have to stumble through the cone of some surveillance camera while living life, but even should you have to s
by NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
This is disturbing. It's bad enough that one might have to stumble through the cone of some surveillance camera while living life, but even should you have to stay there for several minutes completing an errand, you will have another moment of privacy as soon as you walk away. Even while working a shift at Walmart such will be true. But now, for those who work there, they're in the fishbowl permanently.
- HPsquared 2y agoPrivacy implications depend on how long they retain the footage, and how it's stored in general.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y agoI do not agree that privacy works this way. For me, it's not invaded once the peeping Tom shows up, it was degraded when there was opportunity for him to peek. Footage might be destroyed, but one can never be certain that there aren't copies elsewhere. It may seem secure, but how can I be certain that there won't be some future exploit that exposes it to even more people (never mind those who already have access). I think the principle here is that my privacy exists not because you and others promise not to invade it, but only when I can secure you from doing so. Once the cameras are policy, no one who works there will be able to do that for themselves.