MIT has a police force, so in the way that matters for this particular topic, yes, they are a state.

Aside from that, the lines are very blurred these days, as the state often ends up gaining regular, easy access to systems such as this.

(Regardless, it's a bit in bad faith to bring up surveillance-state scenarios, and then, when called on it, claim that it doesn't matter because it technically doesn't apply to the organization at hand. Even though it does in the ways that matter.)

▲

Grombobulous 4 hours ago | parent [-]

That’s not bad faith, it’s just basic logic. MIT isn’t a state and is just installing security cameras on its private property.

I do concede what you’re saying about its police force, and that’s a fair angle.

▲

rc5150 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Sorry to interrupt the pedantry about whether a specific entity counts as a state, I'd like to submit the notion that maybe the argument shouldn't be "is a state entity" but rather "is an entity that has some form of authority over my livelihood that is cornering me into a mode of constant surveillance which I do not consent to."

The obvious answer is to leave the organization, but ultimately one shouldn't have to end their employment in order to be free of undue/unjust AI surveillance.

	▲	kelnos 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, this. That's part of my assertion that this is an argument in bad-faith: focusing on irrelevant details in order to derail an argument.