| ▲ | pvaldes 6 hours ago |
| This excuse has been also used in Swedden to forbid trail cameras in public areas unless the government emit a permit. People has been sued because a woman toke a dump in front of the camera. Is unclear to me if this was deliberated or not. Is a "think on the children", but with women. The fact is that people in public areas can and should expect to be filmed or appear in the background of a selfie. First because is legal, and second because is unavoidable. Without the current "male panic", women shouldn't have a problem with appearing in the background of a low quality photo (that in most cases will show a blurred face). Men don't care about it either, and people don't wander around naked in forests typically. Cameras can have benefits for women also. Will detect presence of wild animals in the area that could be dangerous to women; or criminal activity, like poachers, arsonists or violators. I assume that this is the real problem with the presence of cameras here. That poachers are being filmed They aren't neither bad or good. Is just a tool. The huge majority of zoologists are normal responsible people that would delete any photo with sensitive personal information and never would filter it to internet. The fix is to put banners on the area, but then the cameras will be stolen. Or we could also stop to study nature and let everything go to hell. |
|
| ▲ | x3ro 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > The fact is that people in public areas can and should expect to be filmed Says who? I certainly don't agree with this. It's a societal decision whether or not we want or need video surveillance, which is very different from some random dude filming me with his smartphone. Evidence on whether or not video surveillance is _effective_ is also, at the very least, inconclusive [1] and highly depends on location. So no, I don't think people should expect to be filmed by their government or its contractors at all, _especially_ not in public places :) [1]: https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/surv... |
| |
| ▲ | qup an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | What does that link tell us about the effectiveness of monitoring mammals with cameras? | |
| ▲ | hansvm 25 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > which is very different from some random dude filming me with his smartphone Not that I disagree, but to fix it you need to make it different in a way that you can write down in a law -- something better than "I know it when I see it" -- and you need to keep the negative externalities limited [0]. A law like that seems like it basically wants to codify the level of privacy a typical citizen in 1910 (or 1850 or even 1970) might have enjoyed. Before we had our current level of networking, storage, and computing power, we didn't have to worry about things like "some random dude filmed me with his smartphone" (almost always not a problem) transforming into "every video is automatically uploaded to an AI surveillance tool" (a potential problem -- even if the video itself is "legal", an aggregation of those videos paints a picture of whether you're pregnant, your food preferences, whether you should be afraid of being seal-team-sixed by God-Emperor Trump, ...). The ability to take more invasive measurements throws another wrench in things. Laws regulating videos and security feeds haven't kept up with the technology improving to capture more sensitive data than before. It's fine if my security cameras accidentally capture some of your house and activities 24/7. Assume I'm not automatically uploading those to a central service *cough* ring doorbell *cough* .... It's not great if I intentionally aim more cameras at you (often legal). It's worse if I make them public (often legal). Is thermal imaging to get an idea of which rooms you're in okay (often legal, less so if you're the police)? What about using wifi for imaging [1] to get a fuzzy view of you in a bath (similarly, often legal)? Can I hover a drone outside all your windows at an angle to try to peek through gaps in the blinds (mostly illegal, though the police still try -- FAA isn't the only governing entity here even though their rules mostly allow things like that)? What if I'm not violating your airspace and use an ultra-zoom lens (mostly legal)? [0] Anti-recording laws tend to make it harder to record things you ought to be able to. That can be direct (police using their power to physically block you from recording their abuse, using the existence of anti-recording laws as enough of an excuse that qualified immunity will protect them regardless of how badly those laws are interpreted), indirect (your phone physically not letting you record debt collectors breaking the law in CA, even with consent from the collector, just because your phone knows that CA is 2-party consent), chilling (especially if the law is a bit vague, it gives well-funded actors yet another way to bankrupt you when they're caught breaking the law by your recording -- first trying to sue you for the illegal video), .... [1] I've seen better articles and better performance, but this seems fine: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/wi-fi-routers-used-to-dete... |
|
|
| ▲ | truculent an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > First because is legal, and second because is unavoidable. That it is legal can obviously be changed, and it being "unavoidable" is a matter of culture. You could view stealing as "unavoidable" (ultimately, someone much bigger/stronger/with a weapon/etc _could_ just take your stuff on the street, right?). It's primarily through culture and cultural instruments that we reduce its prevalence. Whether we choose to prioritise a given issue or not is, of course, up for debate, but we should acknowledge that it is, in fact, a choice. |
|
| ▲ | em-bee 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The fact is that people in public areas can and should expect to be filmed in germany i can expect the opposite because surveillance cameras in public spaces are illegal. this is not a "think of the women" argument, but "think of the people". |
| |
| ▲ | x3ro 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | To be very clear, this only applies to private individuals setting up cameras. The government is very much able to surveil the population to its hearts content [1] (link German). There are plenty of "security" cameras around Berlin, at least. [1]: https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/507980/bf8a67c2440522... | |
| ▲ | pvaldes 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In most countries, people can legally spend all morning taking photos in a park if they want. But the real problem in this particular case can be spotted from a mile. Crime against nature was so rampant, that the India government must spend money and use cameras, drones and anything to stop it in the protected area. This is really "think of the criminals". The alleged psychological damage done to women because a natural protected area is being surveilled, is clearly an excuse from poachers, unable now to continue their previous activity freely. I will not try to pretend that I know the role of women on Indian culture and how much fragile mentally they are, but I assume that people can understand that scientific work is necessary; and that behind each camera there is not necessarily a rapist (Cambridge has also women doing science also). If this women are so stressed, the most probable reason is that they are poachers also. Either you protect it, or you lose it. My sympathy for the "victims" of protecting nature is low and decreasing. | | |
| ▲ | Miraltar 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >If this women are so stressed, the most probable reason is that they are poachers also.
I would be stressed too if a drone was following me in my daily activities |
|
|
|
| ▲ | itishappy 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Men don't care about it either. Speak for yourself brother, I care quite a lot. |
|
| ▲ | 35 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
