4 ms·

Explain how this is any different than Myrtle down the road saying: “Did you hear Bob and Julie are having an affair, I saw them out at Bobby’s last week!” Bei

by jpc0 1y ago

Explain how this is any different than Myrtle down the road saying: “Did you hear Bob and Julie are having an affair, I saw them out at Bobby’s last week!” Being out in public has never been a privacy violation, only an anonymity one and who ever guaranteed your anonymity?

singleshot_ 1y ago
Okay! I live twenty two hundred miles from Bob and Julie but I know exactly who they are, where they work, and why everyone in America thinks they are bad people. I am concerned but not surprised that this distinction could escape a person.
- garciasn 1y ago
  That has absolutely nothing to do w/a surveillance state. Let's pretend it was the 1880s and these two were executives at Standard Oil. They were seen cavorting at the opera together by someone who then tipped off the press and/or their company who then tipped off the press. It might have been big news the next day or the day after that. Frankly; this is exactly what happened here. Do you feel there was a 'surveillance state' in the 1880s? I don't.
  - singleshot_ 1y ago
    In the 1880s they were missing: the long distance video camera; the real-time display on the Jumbotron; the ability of any concertgoer to snap a quick series of hires photos; the capability to select and edit the best photo; a globally interconnected system of social media platforms to which to post the resulting photos; and a 24 hour doomscrolling apparatus to put the photos in front of of every person in America six times a day for half a week. So no, I don’t feel like there was a surveillance state in the nineteenth century for what must now must feel like a collection of the most obvious reasons ever collected in one post.
    - jpc0 1y ago
      I’m going to reply here. These are effects of a connected society, I’m unsure on whether they are a net good socially but technologically and economically they have been a game changer. This has nothing to do with a surveillance state, it might enable it but it enables it in the same way any technology enables the ability to abuse said technology. The “state” didn’t publish or share the photos. The things you should be complaining about is the state passing laws to get arbitrary access to the cellphone location data of every single person at this event, and being able to link that data to an individual. That is a loss of anonymity that can be a vector to prosecution and you should fight about, and has nothing to do with the information. And yes and 5/13 eyes country can and will get that information if they so desire and will likely even share it amongst each other and the public would not need to be any wiser. If you are on the “state”’s radar they can absolutely track you to within a few meters across international borders. Technology enabled this, “the people” allowed it. A coldplay concert exposing an affair is unrelated.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - singleshot_ 1y ago
        > This has nothing to do with a surveillance state My claim: there was not a surveillance state in the 1880s, because it was impossible, because they were missing the entirety of the surveillance apparatus. Now that apparatus is omnipresent. Did you think I thought coldplay was the government? It's clear you understand what the surveillance state is and that we are in one -- you even suggest that I should fight it (I do). The coldplay event does have something to do with state surveillance: it relied on all the same infrastructure.
- jpc0 1y ago
  You only know about it because it made news, for a high profile person like this a good reporter would likely have picked up the story locally regardless. For you neighbour sleeping with a coworker you likely have no idea unless you know who he/she is (good on you if you do, you are a dying breed) and the news would not give a damn. Your anonymity isn’t in question here, as the CEO of a company you gave up any right to anonymity and getting caught in public with your mistress was a failure in exposure not a failure of the state to protect your privacy. If this was footage from a concert that happen to catch something happening in the CEOs back yard or living room 100% there would be a lawsuit because that would be the invasion of privacy you think it is, the news would likely still run with the story.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - singleshot_ 1y ago
    Wait, where did you get the idea that I think the Coldplay photos are an invasion of privacy? Obviously they are not.
JohnFen 1y ago
Myrtle down the road would be my neighbors, and they aren't recording. It's a world of difference. But understand, I'm not talking about whether or not there's a "privacy violation". I'm talking about being forced to live in a society where you're always under surveillance and so can never really be free.

by jpc0 1y ago

singleshot_ 1y ago

Okay! I live twenty two hundred miles from Bob and Julie but I know exactly who they are, where they work, and why everyone in America thinks they are bad people. I am concerned but not surprised that this distinction could escape a person.

garciasn 1y ago
That has absolutely nothing to do w/a surveillance state. Let's pretend it was the 1880s and these two were executives at Standard Oil. They were seen cavorting at the opera together by someone who then tipped off the press and/or their company who then tipped off the press. It might have been big news the next day or the day after that. Frankly; this is exactly what happened here. Do you feel there was a 'surveillance state' in the 1880s? I don't.
- singleshot_ 1y ago
  In the 1880s they were missing: the long distance video camera; the real-time display on the Jumbotron; the ability of any concertgoer to snap a quick series of hires photos; the capability to select and edit the best photo; a globally interconnected system of social media platforms to which to post the resulting photos; and a 24 hour doomscrolling apparatus to put the photos in front of of every person in America six times a day for half a week. So no, I don’t feel like there was a surveillance state in the nineteenth century for what must now must feel like a collection of the most obvious reasons ever collected in one post.
  - jpc0 1y ago
    I’m going to reply here. These are effects of a connected society, I’m unsure on whether they are a net good socially but technologically and economically they have been a game changer. This has nothing to do with a surveillance state, it might enable it but it enables it in the same way any technology enables the ability to abuse said technology. The “state” didn’t publish or share the photos. The things you should be complaining about is the state passing laws to get arbitrary access to the cellphone location data of every single person at this event, and being able to link that data to an individual. That is a loss of anonymity that can be a vector to prosecution and you should fight about, and has nothing to do with the information. And yes and 5/13 eyes country can and will get that information if they so desire and will likely even share it amongst each other and the public would not need to be any wiser. If you are on the “state”’s radar they can absolutely track you to within a few meters across international borders. Technology enabled this, “the people” allowed it. A coldplay concert exposing an affair is unrelated.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - singleshot_ 1y ago
      > This has nothing to do with a surveillance state My claim: there was not a surveillance state in the 1880s, because it was impossible, because they were missing the entirety of the surveillance apparatus. Now that apparatus is omnipresent. Did you think I thought coldplay was the government? It's clear you understand what the surveillance state is and that we are in one -- you even suggest that I should fight it (I do). The coldplay event does have something to do with state surveillance: it relied on all the same infrastructure.
jpc0 1y ago
You only know about it because it made news, for a high profile person like this a good reporter would likely have picked up the story locally regardless. For you neighbour sleeping with a coworker you likely have no idea unless you know who he/she is (good on you if you do, you are a dying breed) and the news would not give a damn. Your anonymity isn’t in question here, as the CEO of a company you gave up any right to anonymity and getting caught in public with your mistress was a failure in exposure not a failure of the state to protect your privacy. If this was footage from a concert that happen to catch something happening in the CEOs back yard or living room 100% there would be a lawsuit because that would be the invasion of privacy you think it is, the news would likely still run with the story.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- singleshot_ 1y ago
  Wait, where did you get the idea that I think the Coldplay photos are an invasion of privacy? Obviously they are not.

JohnFen 1y ago

Myrtle down the road would be my neighbors, and they aren't recording. It's a world of difference. But understand, I'm not talking about whether or not there's a "privacy violation". I'm talking about being forced to live in a society where you're always under surveillance and so can never really be free.