You're viewing a single thread.
It sucks that they turned this into a story about how great mass surveillance is
In fairness, the mass surveillance is just more evenly distributed when civilian dashcams are proliferated.
I'm a lot more ok with many people having non internet connected dashcams than one corporation having continuous access to a giant network of cameras
Surveillance apologists like to make the argument that "in public you have no expectation of privacy." But what they don't seem to understand is that having centralized networks of cameras (and especially ones hooked up to things like facial recognition databases) creates a whole new third level that goes beyond merely "in public" and instead becomes a panopticon.
"In public" a person might remember seeing you at a certain time and location, but that doesn't mean they can trace back your whole location history along with that of everyone who was ever near you at some point along it and feed it into a computer looking for suspicious patterns. When somebody tries to follow you closely enough to do that, we call it "stalking" and it's a crime.
But somehow once thing "X" becomes "X, but with a computer" lawmakers think it's magic or some shit and previously-criminal stuff suddenly becomes A-OK! So now everybody is being criminally stalked by Ring (i.e. Amazon), Nest (i.e. Google), etc., and too many people are too computer-illiterate to even begin to grasp what a massive problem that is.
Flock "Safety"
Mass surveillance is here to stay, but the fun part is we can mass surveillance right back.
Still not ok, when there is no downside for lying on a police report. Not everyone will be lucky enough to get dashcam footage contradicting four police offices conspiring to lie