Skip Navigation

PierceTheBubble

@ PierceTheBubble @lemmy.ml

Posts
11
Comments
190
Joined
5 mo. ago

  • PrivacyTubers driving Tesla cars

    Jump

  • Same here, until the government goes from the carrot to the stick approach I guess (because of poor adoption-rates). :) Yeah, I really don't understand how cameras in and around one's personal vehicle, which aren't under the control of its supposed "owner", flies with anyone (especially privacy-conscious persons)...

  • Online shopping, privacy and behavior prediction. A rant.

    Jump

  • Probably because of systems like this, which cross reference account details across online stores, to spot discrepancies between provided information, or spot other "suspicious activity". And mind you, they also consider chargebacks friendly "fraud", which is absolutely delusional. I personally have no experience to share though, but thought this might be relevant.

  • PrivacyTubers driving Tesla cars

    Jump

  • I get what you're saying, but at least they control what they share on their channels, unlike a Tesla car that might disclose intimate moments not intended for sharing (including of others captured in effect). There are a lot of gaps in camera coverage, especially in the public space (at least here in The Netherlands), but if these mobile camera systems move through the streets, you capture a lot more than the relatively few stationary cameras would. I do value Rob's content from time to time, whenever he covers subjects which I believe are underdiscussed (EV surveillance not being one of them haha).

  • PrivacyTubers driving Tesla cars

    Jump

  • Producing a new vehicle requires a lot of resources, and so did the older vehicle you're driving right now. So it might ironically be more environmentally friendly to keep driving that vehicle (especially since a lot of EVs are running on gray energy, and all the newly produced and installed "green" infrastructure also required a lot of resources). The human contribution to climate change appears to be due to industry (and especially globalism): yes, the same industry trying to sell you a solution to the problem they're largely responsible for (and trying to gaslight you into believing you are). Sure, "consumers" play a role in it, but is largely due to incentives created by the industry; and their unwillingness to meaningfully change (instead of resorting to greenwashing, or moving to a subscription economy instead of throwaway). But lowering impact doesn't hurt (that is if you aren't substantially inconvenienced by it: including limited in your ability to move freely and independently), but primarily comes from consuming less instead of more: not discarding a perfectly functional item, and substituting it for a newly produced one.

  • PrivacyTubers driving Tesla cars

    Jump

  • If you don't practice what you preach, your words are shallow in my opinion, and you shouldn't expect anyone to take you seriously. And can we stop pretending like a "nice new electric vehicle" is a must? It's as pragmatic as having a Ring doorbell camera (at least from the perspective of a less technically inclined person), but yet these very same channels won't spare such "big-tech" products (which Tesla wouldn't classify as of course...). Ring cameras are technically (but not practically) restricted to private property, rather than a 360 degree camera roaming public streets; but yet you actively scrutinize the first, while remaining suspiciously quiet about the latter. Please come again, at how that is not peak hypocrisy.

  • PrivacyTubers driving Tesla cars

    Jump

  • Wasn't aware of him pretending to be an engineer haha. I would argue it varies greatly on YouTube, just like it varies coming from other sources: all with a healthy dose of skepticism. Rob's content may be valuable to me, as it tends to raise awareness on subjects which other channels won't address, or only address when it finally receives mainstream coverage. These channels typically don't provide anything new to me, but given the number of subscribers to these channels, there's quite some people that do seem to actively engage with the content; and may therefore be influenced by it, which is primarily why I gauge the content periodically.

  • PrivacyTubers driving Tesla cars

    Jump

  • Yes, and everything you've touched, Rob has at least criticized on his channel; but somehow doesn't apply to his Tesla car... I sometimes wonder how much these privacy advocates care for other's privacy, versus their own and simply yapping about it.

  • PrivacyTubers driving Tesla cars

    Jump

  • I do like Rob's content occasionally, whenever he doesn't repeat, that which he has discussed a million times before. But yes, I totally agree with the rest of the comment.

  • PrivacyTubers driving Tesla cars

    Jump

  • I'm not a big fan of the channel either, but the channel keeps getting featured in Invidious' feed; leading me to sometimes watch a video of his, often to gauge the opinion of him, and more importantly, a large chunk of his (seemingly impressionable) audience.

  • PrivacyTubers driving Tesla cars

    Jump

  • If all the financial incentives disappeared, I think this would apply to most EV drivers in general. But I do agree Teslas do seem to appeal to a different demographic: one that is more interested in aesthetics, performance and technology. So yeah, maybe they're blinded by the sex appeal the car has to them; and do away with reasoning to justify the unjustifiable. Which does align with the impression I got, when reading Rob's responses to the criticism he received on Odysee.

  • Welcome to Dunwoody's Virtual Human Zoo: Flock claimed explicit permission to view cameras where children play. Dunwoody says no such permission exists.

    Jump

  • 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).

  • California police can start ticketing driverless cars this July

    Jump

  • ... these updated regulations further demonstrate the state’s commitment to public safety

    No it doesn't. Taking these vehicles, which are clearly not production ready, off the streets would. So now you have these effective 360 degree cameras, systematically roaming public streets, that are legally required to collect and report data on "safety related" incidents (which could be anything these days).

  • Welcome to Dunwoody's Virtual Human Zoo: Flock claimed explicit permission to view cameras where children play. Dunwoody says no such permission exists.

    Jump

  • 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.

  • Verified by Spotify: New No AI badge— it appears for creators with steady listener activity, clean platform records, and real-world proof like live shows or merch drops

    Jump

  • Yet another platform with meaningless badges

  • European Union (EU) finds Meta in breach of Digital Services Act for failing to prevent minors under 13 from using Instagram and Facebook

    Jump

  • This "problem" is nearly as old as the platform itself, as I can remember doing this as a child, when setting up my Hyves profile in the second half of the 2000's; but no, now is the time to wake up... Right when there's global efforts to "age" verify the internet, how coincidental...

  • [Discussion:] How does physical surveillance affect you?

    Jump

  • Ah okay, then I understand it's quite a contrast compared to the situation in Prague. My guess would be the cameras act as a deterrent, and may be used to alert if activity is detected near the fence. Community members (typically home and/or business owners) increasingly contribute to local surveillance initiatives as well; for neighborhoods a homeowner association (HOA) may lead its members to collaboratively surveil their neighborhood with privately owned cameras. This can also be seen in some shopping centers or industrial areas here in The Netherlands, while home surveillance is typically centered around monitoring front doors (including doorbell cameras) and driveways (typically mounted on garages).

    Traffic cameras are increasingly used by police too, similar to footage from (cloud connected) consumer cameras, and cameras operated by businesses or public organizations. All these seemingly separate systems are becoming increasingly interconnected, and that to me is pure nightmare fuel: the ability to be tracked from the streets into buildings, and from stationary objects into moving vehicles (also being monitored in real-time). I live up north too, and although I do agree it isn't immediately obvious, I have noticed an upward trend regarding camera surveillance (especially surrounding transportation infrastructure: traffic cameras, cameras at transit stations, cameras in and surrounding public transportation vehicles, etc.). The nice thing here in The Netherlands is that you can often stare back at them haha :)

  • [Discussion:] How does physical surveillance affect you?

    Jump

  • That'd be great, I'm quite interested. :)

  • [Discussion:] How does physical surveillance affect you?

    Jump

  • You may be fined €140 if they catch you placing a sticker outside of designated areas over here, and modern cameras are great at detecting objects being left behind (your sticker being left on scene after you leave); so yes, that seems like a reasonable concern (especially alongside political tensions). And considering you're from the US, I assume traffic cameras are Flock ALPRs? But yeah, being privacy conscious is increasingly at the cost of being able to express, or even simply to be; and it's sad it's something to worry about.

  • [Discussion:] How does physical surveillance affect you?

    Jump

  • I agree they should at the very least do that. The Dutch police is required to publish a list of camera coordinates (for cameras storing any license plate, regardless of whether or not relevant in an investigation), but most citizens aren't aware of its existence, it's not easily interpretable, and there's no physical signaling. ALPRs that supposedly only store license plates found in hotlists ("trust me bro") don't require any such publication; so there's probably many other unlisted ALPRs, somehow not requiring publication. And with these mobile ALPR units (which can be relocated at any moment), it becomes even more difficult to remain aware of camera locations; which absolutely seems by design.

  • [Discussion:] How does physical surveillance affect you?

    Jump

  • I agree, but given how data is typically framed around here, it could swing either way. There's just so many citizens that genuinely believe traffic enforcement cameras are for safety, while part of Dutch government spending directly depends on this source of income. There's plenty of documents quite literally stating to increase probability of being caught, together with increasing fines: aiming to compensate for shortages... But I'm glad my post reminded you to start supporting the NGO once more, hats off ;)