Comment on Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. 404 Media Tracked Themselves.
archchan@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
The idea that you’re somehow not entitled to privacy based on the publicity of a space has got to be one of the most successful propaganda campaigns used to strip privacy against the will of people.
Fuck you, I want to take a walk and generally travel freely without being tracked by some fucking “Flock” or Ring camera, or uploaded unblurred to some randos Instagram where Meta and Clearview will train facial recognition and generative AI, or having my entire life story and biometric data collected at some airport.
Take me back to the thousands of years humanity existed without obscenely invasive tech.
I’m pretty sure that the “non entitled to privacy” part was not about getting organisationally stalked, but that if someone were to randomly take a picture outside and post it somewhere, then you don’t get to make them take down photos.
Also, if you are creating a scene in public, other get to film you as they get to see you.
This is not a problem about privacy in public. This is a problem of:
It reminds me a little of Game of Thrones, where all the major players, the royals etc all have spy networks. This is a world where very poor peasants and servants are everywhere and many of them, including children, end up in the employ of this person or that person, such that one’s movements and meetings are trackable to a minute degree. The better your spy network, the more power you have.
Of course Varys, spymaster to the crown, is famed for the effectiveness of his network, which spans the continent and even across the sea to other major cities.
He himself is a master of disguise. This was left out of the show entirely but he frequently appears by surprise, whipping off the guise of an d woman and later leaving the scene dressed as a priest, etc. He grew up with actors and uses makeup, and costume changes to hide his tracks. He can change his voice and gait at will and routinely shocks people by his ability to blend in and appear or disappear at will.
Basically, in a world with no privacy, the world’s foremost surveillance master is a model for all of us in these times. If you want to move freely in public but do so without a trace, be prepared to pull your hood up and when you leave a restaurant, take off the sweater you were wearing when you went in. Practice different postures to throw off gait tracking.
You don’t have to like it, but this is the world we live in.
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 day ago
It’s the “common sense” part of the laws.
A honest person has right to live without being tracked. You shouldn’t care how they’ll do it and you shouldn’t care if they go out of business.
And of course you shouldn’t fear to be public about it and demand answers, LOL, the most notable for me personally part about today’s politics is that in English-speaking countries that fear seems to have become a thing. Well, because any protest that’s more than a demonstration is becoming dangerous and costly.
While literal legalism always helps tyranny.
It’s not much different from USSR in the 70s and 80s, “yeah, you can have all your rights, a defendant and all, and correspondence and you won’t be tortured for submitting a complaint, and Soviet laws will be followed to the letter, but good luck, prove you’re not a camel”.
Since USSR and western nations no longer exist in the same time period, it’s easy to discard even the thought that the latter are gradually becoming similar to the former in some regards, and might even overshoot it.
Anyway, I live in Russia, here things are for the last few months at the point where I can get jailed for writing even this, just because. LOL again.
Ledivin@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
The implied corrolary here is that a dishonest person doesn’t have this right? How is one determined to be dishonest?
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 5 hours ago
It’s more of an emotional antipode of how tracking everyone is justified - “you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” and all such.
Whether, say, a convicted rapist (I suppose that’s dishonest enough) should be tracked or not is a question in the system of values my previous comment represents.
First, whether them being a confirmed (by a proven deed) threat justifies tracking them, second, whether tracking them violates rights of those around them - their coworkers, their family members, their friends, and so on, third, whether it’s possible to make tools for tracking them without introducing a technical possibility of tracking random people.
Second and third are not the same, second is about how tracking technically only them exposes those on their social graph, third is about initially illegal, but technically possible use, that would eventually become legal, because of slippery slopes.