Uh if the cameras are in public, they have no expectation of privacy, right?
-
Uh if the cameras are in public, they have no expectation of privacy, right?
-
P [email protected] shared this topic
-
Yeah but it's a corporation. They get more rights than us humans.
-
There is a question on the constitutionality of automated surveillance technology, the type of data that is being collected, who has access to them, and how they are using it. Additionally, some other concerns I can think of off the top of my head are:
- Are the taxpayers funding this?
- Is my data being sold?
- If so, who is profiting?
- Where is supporting data showing this type of surveillance is needed?
- What demographical areas are these cameras more prevalent in? Aka are there a subset of peoples being targeted by this type of surveillance?
- What are the rules and regulations agencies need to follow with the data they capture with this tool?
-
Aggregating location data is very different from having a picture taken in public, wouldn't you agree?
-
We appreciate your well thought out and constructive comment, but the one you were replying to was about the cameras themselves not having any expectation of privacy, a reversal of the common excuse from the camera owners that your comment addresses.
-
If it was a person maybe. But these are objects. Objects have no expectation of privacy.
-
You may have misunderstood my comment. I was joking about Flock being mad at their cameras being tracked, by using one of the arguments for public surveillance.
-
Oh, definitely not what I thought or intended. Thanks for the heads up and kind reply. For clarity, I believe those cameras shouldn't be installed or used, especially under this administration.
-
Ah, gotcha, I thought it was a sincere argument about tracking people's vehicles.
-
My bad, I thought the original comment was about tracking cars, not the cameras.
-
Fair enough.
