3 ms·

Mostly due to the antisocial behavior described. I would not feel at all worried if someone walking on the same sidewalk as me was recording their child with me

Mostly due to the antisocial behavior described. I would not feel at all worried if someone walking on the same sidewalk as me was recording their child with me in the frame. Someone following me and jotting down notes is very strange behavior, at least for someone like me without celebrity. Stripping this down a bit: would I be fine with a very friendly camera crew documenting everything I do outside in public? No, I wouldn’t like that for privacy reasons. I also wouldn’t like government cameras publicly searchable, and wouldn’t like my phone location publicly searchable, but do not mind law enforcement having access when necessary. It’s a good thought experiment though, and maybe exposes hypocrisy in my view? Not entirely sure.

Godsend69 2mo ago
[dead]
King-Aaron 2mo ago
You are intentionally trying to argue that your feeling of personal safety outweighs the privacy violations that are being discussed. There is the classic quote, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." But to frame it in analogies as you are doing, it is not "a person following you". It is every person following you, at all times. A police officer, your local shop manager who is setting the prices of your groceries, your car insurer, your home insurer, your health insurer. The IRS (etc) agent assigned to you. Me, too. I'm following you, your wife, your children. You don't know me but here I am anyway taking pictures and then selling them to the user above you. Also my bank who sold me a credit card is now also following you. As well as the criminals that want to steal that credit card. Also that criminals kid, who's just curious. There's also a large man in a hat following you. As well as the person who is going to sell you your next car, they're following you too. All these entities, and more, are following you. Carving you up as a product to sell and exploit. And to you, you don't mind because you aren't aware. In the same way that a cow in a pen doesn't mind and isn't aware that an enormous system of industry is raising it to be carved up as a product to sell and exploit.
- veec_cas_tant 2mo ago
  It’s a nice dystopian fantasy but completely unrelated to cameras of public spaces in our current world. It sounds like you are more against the internet than cameras in public spaces, way better tracking data there! There is zero liberty being given up here. There are already tons of cameras, hundreds of millions in the United States alone, recording public spaces. Banning filming in public spaces absolutely would infringe on our freedoms however, which is not something I would support.
unclebucknasty 2mo ago
>maybe exposes hypocrisy I don't know that hypocrisy is the word, but it does seem that you're going a long way to carve out an exception, where there is no real difference. That is, it appears that you've simply decided one scenario is okay, even though that scenario itself begs the question. The article on which you're commenting demonstrates one reason that's so—the potential for abuse. So, seems it all boils down to "out of sight, out of mind" in your framing. As long as you don't see the people invading your privacy, you're okay with believing that no one is. You don't mind that all of the tools of surveillance are in place, because you've defined a scenario wherein it's not possible that they're being used to actually surveil you. In sum, your thought experiment is essentially, "would this be OK in a world that doesn't exist". But, you're answering "yes" in the world that does. Maybe that's what you're sensing as "hypocrisy".
- veec_cas_tant 2mo ago
  Potential for abuse is an issue that should be met with legal constraints, not an abandonment of video evidence. A world without Flock or competitors is still a world with hundreds of millions of cameras recording public spaces at all times. There is zero privacy in public spaces, it’s part of the name. That footage is inefficient to access, but does not require a warrant of any kind. It would not surprise me at all if the compliance rate on law enforcement asking for footage from most homes or businesses is above 90%. I would much rather have an efficient system with strict rules around access vs an inefficient system where each investigation takes massive amounts of human time.
  - unclebucknasty 2mo ago
    >There is zero privacy in public spaces You've agreed that this fact does not preclude uncomfortable scenarios, even for yourself. So, the discussion is about where people fall in their comfort. I would sum up my response to the rest of your comment by noting the difference between individual citizens recording as they please, and a state-operated, always-on surveillance network, with the capacity to surveil every citizen outside of their homes. It's worth noting here that the government famously faces stricter constitutional limits than do citizens. The inefficiency you decry is what others value, as it protects privacy and constrains state power. There's long been a trade-off between efficiency and rights, which much of our legal system seeks to balance—as enshrined in various amendments. Abuse of the frankly violative sort outlined in this article is but one concern, and likely cannot be properly contained in any case—particularly absent the requirement for warrants. This is precisely the reason warrants exist. We don't merely trust law enforcement to abide by its own "rules". So, the larger point is that the very existence of state-operated surveillance networks is considered an intrusive form of abuse by many. One that uses previously unimaginable technology to circumvent the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, which consistency tells us would have otherwise explicitly protected us from such abuse.

Godsend69 2mo ago

[dead]

King-Aaron 2mo ago

You are intentionally trying to argue that your feeling of personal safety outweighs the privacy violations that are being discussed. There is the classic quote, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." But to frame it in analogies as you are doing, it is not "a person following you". It is every person following you, at all times. A police officer, your local shop manager who is setting the prices of your groceries, your car insurer, your home insurer, your health insurer. The IRS (etc) agent assigned to you. Me, too. I'm following you, your wife, your children. You don't know me but here I am anyway taking pictures and then selling them to the user above you. Also my bank who sold me a credit card is now also following you. As well as the criminals that want to steal that credit card. Also that criminals kid, who's just curious. There's also a large man in a hat following you. As well as the person who is going to sell you your next car, they're following you too. All these entities, and more, are following you. Carving you up as a product to sell and exploit. And to you, you don't mind because you aren't aware. In the same way that a cow in a pen doesn't mind and isn't aware that an enormous system of industry is raising it to be carved up as a product to sell and exploit.

veec_cas_tant 2mo ago
It’s a nice dystopian fantasy but completely unrelated to cameras of public spaces in our current world. It sounds like you are more against the internet than cameras in public spaces, way better tracking data there! There is zero liberty being given up here. There are already tons of cameras, hundreds of millions in the United States alone, recording public spaces. Banning filming in public spaces absolutely would infringe on our freedoms however, which is not something I would support.

unclebucknasty 2mo ago

>maybe exposes hypocrisy I don't know that hypocrisy is the word, but it does seem that you're going a long way to carve out an exception, where there is no real difference. That is, it appears that you've simply decided one scenario is okay, even though that scenario itself begs the question. The article on which you're commenting demonstrates one reason that's so—the potential for abuse. So, seems it all boils down to "out of sight, out of mind" in your framing. As long as you don't see the people invading your privacy, you're okay with believing that no one is. You don't mind that all of the tools of surveillance are in place, because you've defined a scenario wherein it's not possible that they're being used to actually surveil you. In sum, your thought experiment is essentially, "would this be OK in a world that doesn't exist". But, you're answering "yes" in the world that does. Maybe that's what you're sensing as "hypocrisy".

veec_cas_tant 2mo ago
Potential for abuse is an issue that should be met with legal constraints, not an abandonment of video evidence. A world without Flock or competitors is still a world with hundreds of millions of cameras recording public spaces at all times. There is zero privacy in public spaces, it’s part of the name. That footage is inefficient to access, but does not require a warrant of any kind. It would not surprise me at all if the compliance rate on law enforcement asking for footage from most homes or businesses is above 90%. I would much rather have an efficient system with strict rules around access vs an inefficient system where each investigation takes massive amounts of human time.
- unclebucknasty 2mo ago
  >There is zero privacy in public spaces You've agreed that this fact does not preclude uncomfortable scenarios, even for yourself. So, the discussion is about where people fall in their comfort. I would sum up my response to the rest of your comment by noting the difference between individual citizens recording as they please, and a state-operated, always-on surveillance network, with the capacity to surveil every citizen outside of their homes. It's worth noting here that the government famously faces stricter constitutional limits than do citizens. The inefficiency you decry is what others value, as it protects privacy and constrains state power. There's long been a trade-off between efficiency and rights, which much of our legal system seeks to balance—as enshrined in various amendments. Abuse of the frankly violative sort outlined in this article is but one concern, and likely cannot be properly contained in any case—particularly absent the requirement for warrants. This is precisely the reason warrants exist. We don't merely trust law enforcement to abide by its own "rules". So, the larger point is that the very existence of state-operated surveillance networks is considered an intrusive form of abuse by many. One that uses previously unimaginable technology to circumvent the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, which consistency tells us would have otherwise explicitly protected us from such abuse.