You might also want to know that in Christiania, the truely free community until recent "normalization", cameras are mostly prohibited. You can still get your camera smashed for filming strangers.

See also: https://www.thelocal.dk/20160923/police-instal-cameras-in-ch...

People routinely tear down CCTVs here and in other truely free aka anarchist communities. Another widely known community, Exarcheia, prohibits cameras too.

Does freedom == privacy? I'd argue privacy is merely a facet of freedom, but public privacy is something I don't think our society is designed to support. The only places I expect privacy are in my home and on the Internet (such as it can be). In public, people who anonymize themselves (e.g., with masks or unmarked vehicles) most often seek privacy for criminal reasons (e.g., thieves or violent protesters). Hence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws

But then a lot of Middle Eastern women seem to usually get away with it in places.

If we decide that giving up public privacy is palatable (which you may not), only then can we move on to cameras. If we decide they're too powerful of a surveillance tool, law enforcement bodies are going to have to do a lot more hiring to deter crime! And China's bathrooms will need paper dispenser attendants.

Oh, and adopt a no-cellphone Stallman policy or... legislate absolutely Zero Tracking(TM) carrier tower service or something.

> The only places I expect privacy are in my home and on the Internet (such as it can be).

That is nonsense.

If a group of people started following you everywhere in public, taking notes of everything you do, measuring anything they can about you that they can without touching you (which increasingly would include health information that is not readily apparent to everyone else) ... you are telling me that that would be perfectly in line with your expectation?

It is unhelpful to conceptualize privacy as binary. Of course, you expect to be seen by other people on the street when you go outside. That does not mean that you expect to be stalked, nor that stalking was somehow an implicitly accepted behavioural norm all along.

Technical capabilities change, and with it, we need to change how we enforce what was previously a natural outcome: You weren't invisible in public, but most people who saw you didn't recognize you and forgot about you within seconds to minutes of seeing you.

> Does freedom == privacy?

The ability to think, speak, write, and associate freely requires privacy. It's not a question of the two being equivalent.

Why do you expect anonymity on the Internet, but not in real world?

Maybe OP spends most of his time on the computer, and thus expects privacy on the Internet, as it might be his main interface to the world. Now, if OP spent most of his time outside and that was his primary interface to society, he would expect the same privacy there.

Good question. I guess it's because it's more feasible and because I can't really hurt others here. The worst I can do is manipulate combinations of 1s and 0s to hack their accounts if their services' security isn't up to snuff or something.

If someone hacked my bank, I'd blame the bank more than the hackers; if someone broke into my home and robbed or hurt me, I'd be harsher on them than on my door manufacturer! (Perhaps not even because it's easier to secure my door than it is an electronic banking system but because I'd be more hurt...)

Still someone breaking into your home will use a mask, and you will not be allowed to when buying things in a store.

I'd rather they didn't in either case, although it is unfortunately difficult to acquire goods legitimately yet anonymously, so I lament that too. At the end of the day, Amazon knows a lot about me.

Another distinction I just thought of is that while I have the option of having online accounts to be hacked (or silly-named personas to talk with), I have no option of having a physical place in meatspace to inhabit of my own where I keep my stuff. I need one, and, if I can't get one, I have bigger problems than privacy. :c

What about private cameras, dashcams, cellphones? I can imagine a possibility for a popular app to link them all together and generate a huge private database of images of everyone. What would you smash then?

What point? Sir, it's too late. At no point. In any country.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DjUdVxJH6yI

Smash a camera and get immediately arrested.

I don't visit Home Depot like I used to. It's basically the cameras--that are everywhere. Along with the underpaid, miserable employees, and ever increasing monopoly prices.

I really despise surveillance, but I am guilty as charged. I have two dash cams in my vechicle.

I think I have a good reason though; being pulled over for driving a old car by our Revenue Collectors, having the nerve to drive past 11:00 pm, and just being pulled over because they can. Oh yea, I'm working on a app that will turn on my smart phone whenever it hears, "Officer".

I think the only remedy to over surveillance will be legislative. I hear it's illegial to video record store employees in France. I don't know if it's true, but we need some of these privacy laws. They will always counter with terrisiom, and theft/vandalism, and the general public will buy it.

Hand up!

"I have a good reason to surveil others, but others better stop surveiling me."