2 ms·
OK, I won't bother trying to talk further with someone who thinks in false dichotomies and cannot understand that two things can be true at the same time. When
by My_Name 3mo ago
OK, I won't bother trying to talk further with someone who thinks in false dichotomies and cannot understand that two things can be true at the same time.
When I'm in my home, I can consider that private and have a right to privacy, and at the same time there can be a camera in there broadcasting to a million people so in no stretch of the word do I have privacy, and my home is not private, and those two truths are not dependent on whether the camera being there, or people watching the feed, is right or wrong.
- throw310822 3mo ago> When I'm in my home, I can consider that private and have a right to privacy Agreed > at the same time there can be a camera in there broadcasting to a million people so in no stretch of the word do I have privacy and my home is not private Agreed. And this is the situation we're discussing now: people who are in a private space, whose privacy is violated by an ip camera that makes their private things accessible to the public. This is the description of the website this entire thread is about. What did you add to the conversation?
- My_Name 3mo agoWhat I am doing is correcting you on your asserting that my statement was "completely wrong from a concrete standpoint" You just said : "> When I'm in my home, I can consider that private and have a right to privacy Agreed > at the same time there can be a camera in there broadcasting to a million people so in no stretch of the word do I have privacy and my home is not private Agreed." So, to paraphrase, "A space can be considered private by the occupant, but the addition of an IP camera makes it not private.", right? Those are not contradictory statements.