3 ms·

Public camera feeds should be public

by xnx 10mo ago

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
ajcp 10mo ago
I agree with this, especially in the case of camera feeds that are run by organizations that are supposedly servicing the public. That being said I also don't wonder if there is a point where we're just crowdsourcing the police state?
- notyourwork 10mo ago
  I think that would lead to society questioning the justification to have them.
  - betaby 10mo ago
    And either outcome is a win.
- k12sosse 10mo ago
  At least the police state would also be on record!
ocrow 10mo ago
To most effectively enable stalking applications
- bigiain 10mo ago
  I have proposed elsewhere that for companies like Flock doing surveillance of the public, it should be legally required for every company executive and board member to have their cameras, ALPR systems, audio surveillance, drone systems, etc - installed outside their homes and along their routes to work and along their routes to their children's schools and their spouses workplaces - and all of that data be publicly accessible. And I'd suggest the same goes for senior management at decision makers at every town and police department and private company that signs a contract with them. "For their own safety", as they'd have us believe. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
  - oofbey 10mo ago
    Wouldn’t matter. The execs of these companies are unlikely to be subject to excessive policing. Systemic bias being what it is.
- chrneu 10mo ago
  ...people can just follow you in public. there's nothing illegal about that. there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public setting, nor should there be. anyone arguing there should be is giving up basic rights because they're scared. the issue is when public feeds get recorded and are allowed to be viewed at a later date. the data retention is the issue, not the privacy.
  - Dylan16807 10mo ago
    If nothing is recorded that helps but it's still a much bigger problem than someone following you because you can see someone that's following you and they also can't be in 50 places at once.
  - AlienRobot 10mo ago
    Ridiculous. Next you're going to treat going to point A to B in a car the same way as walking. Why do you need a license to drive? You don't need a license to walk! In fact, people had a reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces before there were cameras everywhere.
  - turtlesdown11 10mo ago
    > there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public setting, nor should there be. anyone arguing there should be is giving up basic rights because they're scared I personally value my fundamental right to privacy.
- EvanAnderson 10mo ago
  If I was being stalked I'd rather have public surveillance data that I could compile (or pay somebody else to compile) versus relying on law enforcement, who has no duty to protect me. Making surveillance public levels the playing field for everybody.

Public camera feeds should be public

by xnx 10mo ago

Public camera feeds should be public

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

ajcp 10mo ago

I agree with this, especially in the case of camera feeds that are run by organizations that are supposedly servicing the public. That being said I also don't wonder if there is a point where we're just crowdsourcing the police state?

notyourwork 10mo ago
I think that would lead to society questioning the justification to have them.
- betaby 10mo ago
  And either outcome is a win.
k12sosse 10mo ago
At least the police state would also be on record!

ocrow 10mo ago

To most effectively enable stalking applications

bigiain 10mo ago
I have proposed elsewhere that for companies like Flock doing surveillance of the public, it should be legally required for every company executive and board member to have their cameras, ALPR systems, audio surveillance, drone systems, etc - installed outside their homes and along their routes to work and along their routes to their children's schools and their spouses workplaces - and all of that data be publicly accessible. And I'd suggest the same goes for senior management at decision makers at every town and police department and private company that signs a contract with them. "For their own safety", as they'd have us believe. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
- oofbey 10mo ago
  Wouldn’t matter. The execs of these companies are unlikely to be subject to excessive policing. Systemic bias being what it is.
chrneu 10mo ago
...people can just follow you in public. there's nothing illegal about that. there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public setting, nor should there be. anyone arguing there should be is giving up basic rights because they're scared. the issue is when public feeds get recorded and are allowed to be viewed at a later date. the data retention is the issue, not the privacy.
- Dylan16807 10mo ago
  If nothing is recorded that helps but it's still a much bigger problem than someone following you because you can see someone that's following you and they also can't be in 50 places at once.
- AlienRobot 10mo ago
  Ridiculous. Next you're going to treat going to point A to B in a car the same way as walking. Why do you need a license to drive? You don't need a license to walk! In fact, people had a reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces before there were cameras everywhere.
- turtlesdown11 10mo ago
  > there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public setting, nor should there be. anyone arguing there should be is giving up basic rights because they're scared I personally value my fundamental right to privacy.
EvanAnderson 10mo ago
If I was being stalked I'd rather have public surveillance data that I could compile (or pay somebody else to compile) versus relying on law enforcement, who has no duty to protect me. Making surveillance public levels the playing field for everybody.