this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
779 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

85142 readers
5500 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“Experts in Europe warn that these devices are used to record strangers without their consent, possibly breaching EU law.”

“A small LED light is designed to indicate when recording is taking place, but RTBF's investigators found that tutorials explaining how to conceal the indicator are abundant and easily accessible online.”

Sometimes I have a hard time deciding who I despise more, parasite Mark Zuckerberg or its witless hosts who keep using its products—yes, Zuck's pronoun is it. Ban Ray-Ban, for frick's sake.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sicjoke@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So to be clear, you are okay with being surveilled by the government?

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

So to be clear, you are OK with disbanding any form of law enforcement?

FFS at least try to argue in good faith.

[–] sicjoke@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Being against public surveillance doesn’t mean I want to abolish ALL forms of law enforcement/ crime prevention.

My concern (living the UK, a country with a disproportionate number of cctv) is that a society with extensive surveillance infrastructure creates the capability for abuse tomorrow. Once cameras, facial recognition systems, vehicle tracking, and data retention systems exist, future governments inherit those powers regardless of their good intent (or not as the case may be).

It’s already happening here. These systems are being used for “behaviour analysis” and tracking of lawful activities like protests and political activity. They his kind of mission creep is a slippery slope.

There is also the question of effectiveness. The UK has one of the highest densities of CCTV cameras in the democratic world, yet evidence on their impact varies significantly. There is little statistical reduction in inner city crime as a result beyond drug crime (20%), which in my opinion could be handled in a much more positive way.

I can’t speak for other countries.

So yeah, I am anti government surveillance.

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago

Oh, so a short sentence can imply a more nuanced opinion on a subject? /s

Maybe keep that in mind next time before jumping to conclusions.

On the subject: If you want to enforce laws you have to have a way of knowing about violations. This happens via surveillance. Having CCTV is obviously surveillance but so is to show a driver's license. Or compliance documentation. So the question is not whether or not you want government surveillance or not but how much.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ah yes, because there is no space between a surveillance state and "disbanding all forms of law enforcement"

FFS at least try to argue in good faith.

You should take your own advice

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago

I didn't think I'd need an /s for this comment but here we go:

/s