| ▲ | jbxntuehineoh 2 hours ago |
| On an unrelated note, the FT reported today [1] that Israel was able to track Iranian leadership by hacking "nearly all" of the traffic cameras in Tehran. Anyways, I think we should continue to put as many networked cameras, microphones, and other sensors in as many products as possible. There are no downsides! [1] https://archive.is/QSCjf |
|
| ▲ | dehrmann 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| This is a little like how congress feels differently about things like email privacy when they're the ones under the microscope. These ideas seem fine in a world of honest actors, but when there's an adversarial element in the mix, what you thought brought security can be used against you. |
|
| ▲ | boca_honey 16 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just try not to be a terrorist and you'll be safe. |
| |
| ▲ | paxys 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | More like - try not to be someone the government deems a terrorist |
|
|
| ▲ | twodave 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I overall agree with your point, but I don’t think “tracking leadership of a country that murders tens of thousands of its own citizens” is a strong supporting argument… |
| |
| ▲ | palata 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Because you think that "being able to track leadership of a country that knows that other countries may want to target them" does not mean "being able to track pretty much anyone"? Or do you think that those cameras are less secure because the leadership is not good with their people? I'm not sure I follow the criticism here. | | |
| ▲ | flockonus 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Anyone who has a mobile phone has been tracked by their phone provider forever, with the accuracy of a couple blocks. Smartphones only bring more trackers to the equation in the form of apps. What's the material concern to tracking that glasses add? | | |
| ▲ | metamet an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Surely the difference between location tracking (that still requires a warrant for the government to get access to, thus Stingrays) and the intimate visual processing and tagging that is derived from the likes of smart glasses is self explanatory, right? To that point, the difference between geolocation and video tracking and analysis (like Flock) seems pretty obvious to me. It's invasively panopticon. | |
| ▲ | Onavo 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can recognize a threat to national security without supporting the ideology behind it. It sounds like you are trying to to spread FUD around stronger privacy regulations. It would be a lot less funny when the shoe is on the other foot and it's not Iranian networks that's being compromised. Are you perhaps a vendor of mass surveillance systems like your username's namesake? |
|
| |
| ▲ | bigyabai an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why not? China is taking notes, it's merely a matter of time before the shoe is on the other foot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Typhoon | |
| ▲ | Computer0 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I overall agree with your point, but I don’t think defending a country engaged in a genocide is a strong supporting argument… |
|
