4 ms·
And, I guess, even more advanced surveillance.
by oblio 8mo ago
And, I guess, even more advanced surveillance.
- echelon 8mo agoThe minute internet became widespread it was game over. Pros and cons. :/ It'll never happen, but we need a bill of rights for privacy. The laypeople aren't well-versed or pained enough to ask for this, and big interest donors oppose it. Maybe the EU and states like California will pioneer something here, though? Edit: in general, I'm far more excited by cheap lidar tech than I am afraid of the downsides. We just need to be vigilant.
- chha 8mo agoThe EU already has. GDPR and the AI Act puts a lot of limits on what you can do in the open space, although it doesn't always go far enough.
- jonplackett 8mo agoAnd barely gets enforced
- StopDisinfo910 8mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDPR_fines_and_notices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDPR_fines_and_notices Top 5 fines: 1 - Meta - Ireland - €1.2 billion 2 - Amazon Europe - Luxembourg - €746 millions 3 - WhatsApp - Ireland - €225 millions 4 - British Airway - UK - £183 millions 5 - Google - France - €60 millions I wish every law barely got enforced this way.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- throawayonthe 8mo agopretty pathetic, but people keep insisting you can regulate capital
- Zanfa 8mo agoI'd say the numbers listed here prove the GPs point of poor enforcement. The largest fine is roughly 0.97% of Meta's 2023 revenue, the equivalent of a $600 fine for somebody making 60k / year. It's a tiny-tiny cost of doing business at best, definitely not a deterrent, given Meta's blatant disregard for GDPR since then.
- StopDisinfo910 8mo ago1% of Meta's global revenue is a tiny-tiny cost of doing business? At that point, I think I can stop even trying to argue here. It's a massive fine any way you put it. Especially when you consider the ceiling hasn't been reached and non compliance is more and more costly by design.
- KoolKat23 8mo agoTheir net profit was $60billion in 2024. This is peanuts. It can fluctuate by multiples of this fine in a month, depending on whether or not they've had a bad or good month, nevermind year. This pretty much is just a cost of doing business.
- Zanfa 8mo agoIt's not even 1% of their annual revenue, let alone the entire multi year period they've been in breach before and since. It's nothing to them.
- StopDisinfo910 8mo agoThe interesting part is that it keeps going up. You seem to believe we have somehow reached a cap where Meta can just expense it as a cost of doing business. That's not how European law works. The fine maximum is far higher and repeated non compliance keeps making the fines higher and higher. It's a ladder not a sizing precedent.
- Detrytus 8mo agoMaximum GDPR fine is 4% of global revenue in the previous year. If a company has 30% profit margin then they can, in theory, treat is as a cost of doing business, indefinitely.
- mdrzn 8mo ago2775 fines for a total of €6.8B since July 2018. It's not A LOT (I would hope for A LOT MORE fines), but it's not nothing. https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/
- jonplackett 8mo agoIt’s very interesting. Thanks for sharing. But also kinda weird. There seems to be a lot of fines for hospitals for example. Some Portuguese hospital was fined €400,000 for ‘Insufficient technical and organisational measures to ensure information security’
- jacquesm 8mo agoMedical, banking and insurance are three industries that the European data privacy watchdogs are much more strict about because of the potential for damage.
- seanmcdirmid 8mo agoLidar doesn’t really give you much to “see”, just shape and distance…so I’m a bit confused how it can be used for invasive surveillance, do you mean when fused with vision input it somehow allows it to infer more privacy stuff?
- zemvpferreira 8mo agoI think we’re well past the point where mass surveillance was a technical challenge. Mass oppression through autonomous violence however…
- ben_w 8mo agoEven back when Snowden was current news, we'd reached the point where laser microphones could cover every window in London for a bill of materials* less than the annual budget of London's police force. * I have no way to estimate installation costs, but smartphones show that manufacturing at this scale doesn't need to increase total cost 10x more than the B.o.M.
- lonelyasacloud 8mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_(robot) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_(robot)
- pu_pe 8mo agoLIDAR would be preferrable to cameras when it comes to privacy actually
- clayhacks 8mo agoI’d definitely feel much better if most cameras in the world were replaced by LIDAR. I feel like it would be much tougher to have a flawless facial recognition program with LIDAR alone
- adrianN 8mo agoWho needs facial recognition if you can identify people based on gait?
- vntok 8mo agoJudicial systems where a 6% error rate is deemed way too high to lead to a conviction.
- adrianN 8mo agoThen you combine it with some other technique, eg tracking daily routes of individuals, to lower the error rate. You only need a handful of bits to distinguish all inhabitants of the average city. But imho that error rate would likely be low enough for some judge to authorize more invasive surveillance of suspects thus identified.
- 0x3f 8mo agoGait recognition is almost entirely hype. Sure it works to tell the difference between n = 10 people but so what, you can tell the difference between a group of 10 people by what kind of shoes they are wearing.
- KaiserPro 8mo agoI don't think it makes a difference. Dense lidar goes you more information than 2d colour imagery. There are SLAM cameras that only select "interesting" points, which are privacy preserving. They are also very low power.
- rfv6723 8mo agoHumanity has never known a world without surveillance. Responsibility cannot exist without being watched. Primitive tribes lived under the constant eye of the group, and agricultural eras relied on the strict oversight of the clan. Modern states simply adopted new tools for an ancient necessity. A society without monitoring is a society without accountability, which only leads to the Hobbesian trap of endless conflict.
- zorked 8mo agoThat's an incredibly bullshit argument to defend the indefensible.
- rfv6723 8mo agoYour reaction actually proves the point. Aggression thrives in anonymous spaces because the lack of oversight removes the weight of accountability. When people feel unobserved, they quickly abandon the social friction that once held tribes and clans together. You are essentially providing a live demonstration of why a society without any form of monitoring inevitably slides into the Hobbesian trap.
- squigz 8mo agoI don't think a random internet comment proves anything about society at large. People don't hesitate to be aggressive even when they're not anonymous and there's a threat of accountability - see, all crime, or people just acting shitty toward others. Mass surveillance does not cause everyone to magically get along.
- rfv6723 8mo agoHistory shows that whenever surveillance gaps appear, chaos follows. The explosion of crime during early urbanization was the specific catalyst for the creation of modern police forces because traditional social bonds had failed to provide oversight in growing cities. Japan maintains its safety through a deep-rooted culture of mutual neighborhood monitoring that leaves little room for anonymity. Even China successfully quelled the violent crime waves of its early economic boom by implementing a sophisticated surveillance network.