People who claim they don’t value privacy are simply ignorant of how this can affect them. They don’t consider the data falling into the wrong hands. Surely they don’t want criminals with unauthorized access at least. It should be obvious that governments don’t always have their best interests either.
Comment on Amazon Ring Cashes in on Techno-Authoritarianism and Mass Surveillance
Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
I mean, people are not being forced to buy this shit. So it’s on the idiots who think they have nothing to hide. Just Google something like “why are people ok with cameras inside their house “ and you’ll see many many people basically saying “don’t care, I have nothing to hide, everyone has a pussy/dick”
tabular@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 3 hours ago
I mean, you might think that but you underestimate how willing people are to give up their privacy and freedom just to feel safe.
aceshigh@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
The cops can come to them to get video on you. So you’re impacted.
drmoose@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
We still need to protect the idiots. Thats why we’re banning asbestos and have safety codes. How is this any different?
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 7 hours ago
IT is new and too abstract for the old farts in ruling and judging.
jjlinux@lemmy.ml 5 hours ago
This is the right approach. Normies won’t pay attention to any “your privacy is at risk” argument. But showing them examples (plural, as 1 instance won’t do shit either and will just be dismissed) of people getting fucked by all the surveillance COULD make some of them take it into consideration (no guarantees).
I do not agree that people that allow these devices into their homes are idiots. I see them more as “ignorantly lazy”.
drmoose@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Isn’t roofing too abstract either? 100% majority of people dont know how prevalent asbestos was in roofing material and what even asbestos does but yet if you tell anyone thay their shit has asbestos in it they’ll be quick to rush to alternatives. Sometimes people just need to be told what to do.
jjlinux@lemmy.ml 5 hours ago
That’s right. But how detrimental asbestos is took time to be made abundantly clear and known, plus “authorities” got involved, so the sheep listened. With surveillance, the same “authorities” want the public to be ignorant so that they can keep it going without us countering it.
Similar situations, but certainly not equal.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 5 hours ago
We need to protect uninformed people. You do this by informing them. If they know the risks and still decide they don’t care it’s their problem, not ours.
Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 6 hours ago
Not if they are willingly bringing this inside their homes. I think it’s very different from substances that you might not be aware are there and are highly toxic.