4 ms·
Respectfully disagree. I'm personally entirely comfortable with the authorized force-wielding parties in my society also being localized units of high surveilla
by patcon 12y ago
Respectfully disagree. I'm personally entirely comfortable with the authorized force-wielding parties in my society also being localized units of high surveillance. This does not greatly affect my privacy, but rather my moments where I am least concerned with privacy (ie. the interactions of maximum likeliness for me to get legally injured or have my longterm rights revoked)
- angersock 12y agoSo, with the infrastructure we have in place, the idea of "localized" high surveillance is one map-reduce job away from being a joke. There won't be such a thing as "oh, this is the video database just for your local officers and nobody else". The data is going to be mined by other companies, used for other purposes--basically, all kinds of shit that is currently infeasible only because of the overall lack of installed mobile cameras that are dependable (mobile could've gone this way, but didn't). Also, as far as longterm-rights being revoked, this is a step down the road towards that revocation. Lastly, the big issue here is that, while you might be comfortable ceding your rights here, it doesn't just impact you: anybody else in camera frame is having their privacy violated. I don't care that you are willing to cede your rights, but don't go support something that'll harm others.
- Dylan16807 12y agoLocalized, as in it only monitors the direct vicinity of officers. Something that doesn't expand exponentially more than manpower.
- jacquesm 12y agoI'm all for it but the police force should not be the recording agency. Their cameras tend to malfunction when you need them most.