It’s only used for law enforcement purposes.
As if even that is in any way okay, especially considering how fascist the government is becoming!
Even if this was working 100% as the public intended, it would still be evil.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
It’s only used for law enforcement purposes.
As if even that is in any way okay, especially considering how fascist the government is becoming!
Even if this was working 100% as the public intended, it would still be evil.
Isn't it the store in that recent Benn Jordan video where he showed through some fairly basic OSINT that these cameras already had some pretty suspicious accesses?
No shit...
If a private corporation with zero oversight has the keys, they're gonna take it for a spin. And once they do it the first time and break the stigma, they're quickly going to get used to it and just do it all the time.
The company could 100% fix this with oversight internally, but clearly they won't unless someone makes them.
Everytime someone looks at any camera, and Everytime they stop, just needs to create a log entry. Set the system to flag whatever, and confront employees for abusing it.
Literally all it takes, but these surveillance corps won't put in it any oversight, be ausenits better to pretend the problem doesn't exist
I wish more people understood this problem isn't restricted to Flock systems: every modern IP surveillance system can (and does) share evidence digitally, or set access privileges to their systems (allowing for real-time monitoring by third parties: mostly law enforcement); or if you're a larger organization in the European Union, the GDPR requires a 'Data Protection Officer (DPO)' to have access to personal data being collected at all times, and must abide to any request being made by authorities, while under professional secrecy (and explicitly not disclose such additional processing, in access requests filed by data subjects). All of these seemingly separate systems (regardless of being privately or publicly owned), are increasingly growing interconnected, typically resulting into local 'Operation Control Centers (OCCs)'; which may in turn share data they aggregate to further national, or even globally spanning OCCs.
every commercial modern IP surveillance system can (and does) share evidence digitally
Minor quibble.
Self-host Frigate (https://frigate.video/), buy generic Power over Ethernet security cameras (Amcrest has good ones in my experience) and keep everything wired and isolated from your regular LAN. Then you actually control your own security system.
Buy a Nest camera from Amazon and it'll be easier. They'll do all of the work for you while helping themselves to video of your property and family for them to do with as they please.
It is in fact true that I could build a system that doesn't, but any random security camera on any random business I walk past on the street (public land, no implied consent for any activities on the premises)? I have to assume the worst about it now. It's not just an innocent way to protect property from thieves it's functionally now part of a massive violation of civil liberties.
Oh yeah, I agree.
The mass data sharing is the core issue. We're collectively creating a power that nobody should have and yet it's available for subscription without any regulations.
Practically every modern IP surveillance system can (and does) share evidence digitally
As self-hosted systems could sadly be considered a rounding error, in the context of all surveillance systems in use. And as long as home surveillance systems are strictly limited, to only capture within the boundaries of the property they reside on, I'm willing to accept that as a compromise. But I'm somewhat biased as a former mailman, in saying it's uncomfortable to be under surveillance, regardless of whether the data is kept locally or not. At least in my local area, there's no substantiated reason for such systems, and installations likely stem from unfounded paranoia, or reasons related to "convenience" (a doorbell camera to give instructions for package deliveries, instead of creating a designated spot for such deliveries).
When surveillance cameras were first introduced, they taped to a VHS tape basically on the premises and if no one pulled the tape it would just get overridden. The technological capabilities of any and all surveillance cameras have changed so much that they have now become unacceptably dangerous for even non-criminals. Having a camera on Mia is harming me and why is that I don't even have the right to know let alone consent to. We need a massive social reorientation to understand surveillance as an inherently aggressive act that is socially unacceptable and morally wrong except in extreme limited circumstances which must justify themselves against danger those cameras posed to the people