this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2026
438 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
88072 readers
3371 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Upload your ID for every transaction to prove you're not a sex offender".
if u cared about privacy y would u buy mr ihateprivacy glasses???
Hot take, but the invasion of privacy only actually occurs when someone publishes the recording. Otherwise, making a personal recording of what someone can see or hear is no more invasive than them being there.
You can't claim an expectation of privacy against someone when you're stood in the same room with them.
im guessing every recording is shared to meta no matter the persons intention or what they do
its meta
That's an interesting argument, however it probably wouldn't go that far.
Taking it back to retro interpretations, sharing your photo with meta is basically the same as sharing your photo with a print company that takes and processes your negatives. They're acting on your behalf in a limited scope, so sharing with them is the same as you doing it all yourself.
However it maybe comes back into play when that scope isn't limited, as Meta require in their terms of service. It doesn't matter what individuals say to Meta regarding their data, their prohibition is superseded by other users, who agree that they have permission to share other people's information with Meta.
Meta isn't breaking privacy laws - you are.
When buying a gun and/or pervert glasses, yes, sounds very reasonable?
Either we believe in giving people the chance to become functioning citizens of society again or we don't. I'd argue the "don't" doesn't seem to work out too well for the Americans. Europe, meanwhile taking the former attitude, has far better recidivism rates.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235223000867
Given the recidivism rates in even the best performing countries is so high I disagree.
Denmark, Finland and Norway have similar two year conviction rates to the USA when accounting for other factors.
20-30% of sexual predators will offend again AND be caught within two years. Given the delays in reporting sexual abuse and the general lack of reporting to start with this is remarkably high.
Given the risk these predators pose to innocent people they shouldn’t be trusted nor afforded the full rights available to ordinary citizens.
So, do I understand that you're willing to enact measures based on a presumption of recidivism despite 70+% not doing so according to the research you're citing?
I don't agree that it's morally right to punish a criminal based on the assumption they will repeat offend when the research indicates a majority doesn't. My conclusion from that research would be better methods of correcting the behavior and verifying compliance are probably necessary. Not group punishment.