This gets us to the central problem of today’s surveillance state. No one running the cameras wants to be observed. One reason that city officials object to releasing Flock data, for example, must that they themselves are among the recorded. The cameras are on them too; they too can be tracked. Everything means everything for these everywhere cameras.
I worry we give too much attention to one company over several that are problematic. Not that the attention is invalid, more that we need to keep every invasive technology in each other’s awareness.
It’s at least setting legal precedent which makes it easier to fight against these.
common law “precedent” is just a bastardization of roman law meant to allow for some inbred english aristocrats to maintain their grip on power.
civil law is objectively superior in everyway that matters
i don’t really believe in those anymore.
That’s a very Soviet shrug
thanks 🥦