3 ms·

It's nefarious and privacy-violating when the database exists, government involvement just exacerbates things because private companies aren't allowed to send a

It's nefarious and privacy-violating when the database exists, government involvement just exacerbates things because private companies aren't allowed to send armed goons to your house and break down your door.

ericmay 2mo ago
So my understanding was incorrect, you're against any recording including personal use, traffic cameras, security cameras on private property (for example at a jewelry store)?
- ThrustVectoring 2mo ago
  I'm not sure why you're ignoring the central point I'm making about scale. One guy having a camera pointing out of his doorbell is different from Amazon being able to do whatever they want with the footage from something like one in five US homes. Systems are more than the sum of their isolated parts.
  - ericmay 2mo ago
    I was trying to understand where your opposition was - the operator of the device, the number of devices, or perhaps who and how information was accessed. Maybe I should've been more direct. In your view, what is the appropriate usage for camera devices in public spaces?
    - ThrustVectoring 2mo ago
      All public cameras are a cost to privacy for the benefit of the operator, its just that the identity of the operators and the extensiveness and data centralization change the magnitude of the cost and the proper response. If my friend has a doorbell camera and I don't like being recorded by him every time I visit his house, I can just not visit his house. Similarly, if Target has in-store surveillance cameras, I can just not shop there. If driving anywhere has me logged multiple times in Flock's network, I can't just stop driving, and even if I did they track pedestrians and bluetooth signals too. In short my opposition is to all of it, but some scenarios are clearly far worse for privacy than others. Doing something unusual that has your neighbors privately chuckling at their surveillance footage is less bad than doing something unusual that has Target's loss protection following you and making you feel uncomfortable, which is less bad than doing something unusual that has a police officer decide to "randomly" stop your car and attempt to search it, which is less bad than doing something unusual that has a SWAT team kicking down your door and arresting you.
      - ericmay 2mo ago
        > If my friend has a doorbell camera and I don't like being recorded by him every time I visit his house, I can just not visit his house. Thanks though as a nitpick this isn’t quite accurate since it can also record people just passing by in the general case.

ericmay 2mo ago

So my understanding was incorrect, you're against any recording including personal use, traffic cameras, security cameras on private property (for example at a jewelry store)?

ThrustVectoring 2mo ago
I'm not sure why you're ignoring the central point I'm making about scale. One guy having a camera pointing out of his doorbell is different from Amazon being able to do whatever they want with the footage from something like one in five US homes. Systems are more than the sum of their isolated parts.
- ericmay 2mo ago
  I was trying to understand where your opposition was - the operator of the device, the number of devices, or perhaps who and how information was accessed. Maybe I should've been more direct. In your view, what is the appropriate usage for camera devices in public spaces?
  - ThrustVectoring 2mo ago
    All public cameras are a cost to privacy for the benefit of the operator, its just that the identity of the operators and the extensiveness and data centralization change the magnitude of the cost and the proper response. If my friend has a doorbell camera and I don't like being recorded by him every time I visit his house, I can just not visit his house. Similarly, if Target has in-store surveillance cameras, I can just not shop there. If driving anywhere has me logged multiple times in Flock's network, I can't just stop driving, and even if I did they track pedestrians and bluetooth signals too. In short my opposition is to all of it, but some scenarios are clearly far worse for privacy than others. Doing something unusual that has your neighbors privately chuckling at their surveillance footage is less bad than doing something unusual that has Target's loss protection following you and making you feel uncomfortable, which is less bad than doing something unusual that has a police officer decide to "randomly" stop your car and attempt to search it, which is less bad than doing something unusual that has a SWAT team kicking down your door and arresting you.
    - ericmay 2mo ago
      > If my friend has a doorbell camera and I don't like being recorded by him every time I visit his house, I can just not visit his house. Thanks though as a nitpick this isn’t quite accurate since it can also record people just passing by in the general case.