Critics say technology that lets agencies watch security footage in real time — provided users opt in — is “ripe for abuse.”
You must log in or register to comment.
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 57 users / day
- 383 users / week
- 1.5K users / month
- 5.7K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 2.47K Posts
- 58.8K Comments
- Modlog
Wouldn’t trust any officials in Clearwater with anything, because the town is run by Scientologists. It’s like their hub city.
Many corporations who are run by that cult have their HQs in Clearwater. Many of them are clustered around the Clearwater city hall, along with a major Scientology center.
With all that context, it really makes the surveillance camera monitoring more creepy.
I really don’t like the “but otherwise we’d need a warrant” approach.
Yes, of course you should need a warrant. That’s the bit that’s the safeguard and actually is the checks and balance against abuse. It’s not a problem to be optimized away.
All cameras and data collection CAN be abused. Is there any evidence that this HAS been abused?
It’s in the article’s title.