4 ms·

> It's worse for the technician in this case, because he really was being followed --- that's not unlawful but it's unnerving. Isn't that exactly what Flock ar

> It's worse for the technician in this case, because he really was being followed --- that's not unlawful but it's unnerving. Isn't that exactly what Flock are doing to tens of thousands of people a day? So why the double-standard. I actually agree it is unnerving, I just don't agree that one should be held to a different standard than the other.

chii 13d ago
> one should be held to a different standard than the other. harassing a worker is not the way to fix the problem. The worker has no agency to affect the changes desired by the harasser. It's an issue with the gov't, and needs civic procedures to change. This behaviour is the same as harassing hospitality staff for bad prices. Harassers would be considered borderline committing terrorism if they go further.
- ricketycricket 13d ago
  It legally wasn't harassment. If it was, he would have not been let go. That word means a real thing and this was not it.
- Hizonner 13d ago
  Filming them at work, or following them to the next job so you can film them at work, is not in any way, shape, or form "harassment".
- ndriscoll 13d ago
  The worker does have agency. They did not have to take a job installing mass surveillance systems. They're directly doing the bad thing, and the "harassers" are literally doing the same thing the worker is doing, but back to the worker.
  - ryandrake 12d ago
    Contractors On The Death Star. You know you are working for the bad guys and are willingly doing the job.
tzs 13d ago
> Isn't that exactly what Flock are doing to tens of thousands of people a day? So why the double-standard. It's not the same thing. Flock cameras have terrible privacy implications but at least when I pass by one of them they are also filming everyone else passing by. I'm not being singled out. They are also sometimes used by stalkers that have access to improperly track people, so if I do acquire a stalker they might help my stalker. If some person is following me personally around and filming me then I am clearly being singled out.

chii 13d ago

> one should be held to a different standard than the other. harassing a worker is not the way to fix the problem. The worker has no agency to affect the changes desired by the harasser. It's an issue with the gov't, and needs civic procedures to change. This behaviour is the same as harassing hospitality staff for bad prices. Harassers would be considered borderline committing terrorism if they go further.

ricketycricket 13d ago
It legally wasn't harassment. If it was, he would have not been let go. That word means a real thing and this was not it.
Hizonner 13d ago
Filming them at work, or following them to the next job so you can film them at work, is not in any way, shape, or form "harassment".
ndriscoll 13d ago
The worker does have agency. They did not have to take a job installing mass surveillance systems. They're directly doing the bad thing, and the "harassers" are literally doing the same thing the worker is doing, but back to the worker.
- ryandrake 12d ago
  Contractors On The Death Star. You know you are working for the bad guys and are willingly doing the job.

tzs 13d ago

> Isn't that exactly what Flock are doing to tens of thousands of people a day? So why the double-standard. It's not the same thing. Flock cameras have terrible privacy implications but at least when I pass by one of them they are also filming everyone else passing by. I'm not being singled out. They are also sometimes used by stalkers that have access to improperly track people, so if I do acquire a stalker they might help my stalker. If some person is following me personally around and filming me then I am clearly being singled out.