4 ms·

Good idea: keep the confrontational 1st amendment auditors, lose the benefits of security cameras. /s

• Dylan16807 9mo ago
  No idea who you mean by the first group. Security cameras are fine for filming your own property.
  • alex43578 9mo ago
    1st amendment auditors = confrontational streamers who deliberately take public filming to an extreme. Any cameras are fine for recording any public property. That’s the whole idea of being in public: others can see you, you can see them, and you aren’t (shouldn’t) be doing something you wouldn’t mind being recorded. You have no expectation of privacy standing on a sidewalk.
    • Dylan16807 9mo ago
      I'm fine that others can see me. But we don't have to extend that to unlimited recording. We don't have to extend that to robots. 50 years ago you didn't have privacy walking around outside but you weren't subject to constant surveillance and tracking. The current state isn't some inevitable fact of life. It's fixable without any draconian action.
      • alex43578 9mo ago
        What needs to be fixed about that for a regular person, realistically? What harm is a regular person suffering from being recorded by the security camera at Home Depot, their neighbor’s Ring doorbell, or even the TSA face recognition at the airport? Ignoring the fact that there’s alternate-construction approaches to tracking all that (credit cards, your nosey neighbor just looking out a window, phone tracking, passenger manifests, etc), there’s just no realistic harm you incur by being tracked in those ways. If you’ve repeatedly shoplifted at the Home Depot or stole your neighbor’s Amazon package, I get it, but otherwise, what are you doing in the middle of a street that can’t be recorded forever?