• Humanius@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    This guy can go suck an egg…

    He also added, “Let’s take Bandera back to 1880 properly. No double standards, no hypocrisy. If LPRs are ‘unconstitutional’ and invade our right to ‘public’ privacy, we need to be courageous enough to go all the way. I look forward to the ‘Privacy First’ crowd showing up to support these bans […] just remember to leave your phones at home.”

    It’s not that difficult to see the difference between having the option to decide not to bring your phone if you don’t want to be tracked, and not even getting an option to avoid AI-powered CCTV systems all over town.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      2 hours ago

      This whole “you have no expectation of privacy in public” nonsense needs to end. Even in “public,” we had the concept of stalking as a crime!

      The technology now goes so far beyond that there are no longer just two categories: we now have public, private, and panopticon.

    • 9point6@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Why don’t they install a public CCTV camera in his toilet if he doesn’t think privacy is important

      • nyan@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Actually, it would probably be more appropriate for the municipal website to display the location of any vehicles he owns, and what speed they’re travelling at if they’re in motion, at all times. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and all that. Automated software that watches the page and tickets him every time he exceeds the speed limit is optional, but recommended. Additional intrusive software on his phone that tickets him if he uses it while driving is also optional but recommended.