Maybe so, but this isn't the way to fix it. Two wrongs don't make a right. The natural conclusion of your line of thought is that the police should be able to enforce against things they personally think are "bad", rather than just enforcing the law. Not the world I want to live in, thanks.
> The natural conclusion of your line of thought is that the police should be able to enforce against things they personally think are "bad", rather than just enforcing the law.
Got some bad news for you about the average cop's knowledge of an understanding of the laws they enforce.
Well, you can do the illegal thing either way. Not getting caught is a different story.
In general, though, I'd rather have privacy even though I'm not doing anything illegal and, though it pains me to say it, I'd rather they don't tow Teslas just for being nearby.
Honestly there are a lot of laws that don't really make sense given modern technology. It's one thing to say people have no expectation of privacy when people only have cameras, or even have to purposefully videotape you. It's another to say you will 100% be recorded in HD at all times in public and that data will be sold to any random third party to do whatever with and store forever
An outdated argument that hasn't kept up with modern technology. Previously surveillance was expensive and hard, now it's cheap and easy.
This argument was invented in modern times to justify stripping the anonymity of the crowd from the general populace and is destroying the freedom from constant surveillance we once took for granted.
How does that work? People take photos and videos whenever they go right? In practice people will get caught in others’ footage all the time. So how can you ban public recording without also banning all photography?
Do people really get permission though? Like what if you’re in some crowded area - for example taking photos of some landmark? You’re not going to be able to conceivably chase down 10+ people and get their permissions. I imagine most people just record whatever they do and upload it to their social media.
So basically in France, but i think this is from EU directives (directives are not laws, just "please we want to have at least this implemented in your country" but any country can ignore them if they want):
- you can't record public places without being present (police is excluded, but private shop owners not, hence you can't have camera filing anything other than the inside of your shop)
- You can't record children in any way without their explicit consent and, if they're younger than YY (i don't remember), their parent consent, if they can be identified. Anyway, you can't publish any record where a child can be recognized without explicit consent (you have to blur them even if you post it on a private group in social media ideally) (not 100% sure about that, i think you have at least 3 laws that intersect here)
- You can record adults in public places. You cannot post your recording without explicit consent (blur them when in doubt).
> I imagine most people just record whatever they do and upload it to their social media.
Perhaps, but at least in countries that have reasonable laws about this, anyone who finds themselves in pictures/video they didn't consent to has some method of recourse.
Basically: “What’s so innocent about having your eyes open?”
If you are somewhere where you might expect that people could see you, don’t pretend that they are supposed to not see you, or to forget what they saw. Thinking ypeopleshould have that kind of control over other people’s memories, even if stored in their stuff, seems dystopian.
There is a sharp line. If I see something, what I see isn't recorded verbatim on some shareable media somewhere, nor is that data stored in a database.
> widespread neuralink
At this time, I don't see any reason to think this is a thing that neuralink or similar will be able to accomplish anytime soon. Massive video surveillance, on the other hand, is a problem that actually exists right now.
