Re:JetBlue explains to a passenger how it got a photo of her...
by mentat on Thursday May 02, 2019 @06:55PM
(#19813743)
Make it symmetric, use it to watch the watchers, then we might be talking about something socially viable. Without that, it's about control.
Re:JetBlue explains to a passenger how it got a photo of her...
by shkkmo on Thursday May 02, 2019 @07:12PM
(#19813885)
There is a fundamental trade-off between transparency and privacy, but also a very real risk that we will end up with neither.
Re:JetBlue explains to a passenger how it got a photo of her...
by lapinot on Thursday May 02, 2019 @07:29PM
(#19814025)
Privacy is not hiding, it's about controlling visibility. Most of the data we wish would be treated differently are not strictly private, we just don't assume they would be easily accessible (specifically by a private company). We are currently transparent to big actors but cannot see through the window ourselves.
Re:JetBlue explains to a passenger how it got a photo of her...
by Retric on Thursday May 02, 2019 @07:38PM
(#19814086)
Effective surveillance is extremely expensive. But, it’s an easy way for contractors and suppliers to make money so many industries lobby for it.
For example road side license plate readers sound cheap, but unless a cop is next to it it’s really hard to catch the car that tripped one.
This reeks to me of another situation where we're trying to put the cat back in the bag, and that has basically never worked (except maybe nuclear disarmament, and even then... barely, and largely because the capital costs are so extreme).
Surveillance tech is cheap and widely available and will only continue to move in that direction. Attempting to make sure no one has a photo of you without your consent seems hilariously impossible to me. Focus on the outcomes instead.