I would also love for ubiquitous surveillance to be used for good, but what would happen in your scenario is ICE using the footage to hunt and kidnap people who "look" like undocumented immigrants.
Do you not see an irony in your claim? Why was ICE pulled back in Minneapolis? Because cameras caught the state in a lie. Without them those murders would have been swept under the rug, even celebrated.
If you think the problem with ICE is too many cameras once again I think you make my point. More people have died in ICE custody and at the state's hand since, yet don't have such clear incriminating footage of ICE available. ICE doesn't want to wear bodycams. They don't want cameras in their prison camps.
Don't you think under such circumstances, it is a little suspect that you won't acknowledge at all the way cameras are actually an equalizer? ICE is already doing the things you claim to fear. More meta glasses on the streets, especially on the heads of regular decent people, activists or vulnerable populations could only be a good thing.
Phones can also be used to spy on populations. Should citizens thus refrain from filming ICE with their phones? Or is preventing people from being murdered and letting the state brand them a terrorist right in front of you more important?
It's not a perfect world. You have to make a tradeoff. Imo you're making the wrong trade, and frankly one that is obviously coming from a place of speculation, and not immediate fear of actual oppression.
ICE doesn't like cameras. Apparently you don't either. Yet you claim to be against ICE? Why don't you square the circle for me instead of deflection by way of slippery slope. If you have a meaningful rationale I'm eager to hear it.
What isn't? It is increasingly impossible to do anything without being monitored and tracked, and that data is aggregated more and more. Cars, TVs, random appliances...
You say suspicion is warranted, you're still not only charging forward with this but also complaining about other people's perception of you doing so. You're not being left out, you're included in the narrative. You just don't like it.
I hope, for the kids' sake, in addition to normalizing the idea that it's okay for dad to be recording them without their awareness, you teach them that most people find the idea of strangers doing this to be creepy and distasteful (for good reason), so they need to be wary around Meta glasses despite seeing them as a quotidian thing.
If you gave me a non-Meta glass like this, I'd happily switch, and FWIW, if I saw some evidence of Meta doing something untoward with this data, I'd dump them immediately. An unaction'd patent and breathless headlines over "creep glasses" is all I have to go on for now.
"in addition to normalizing the idea that it's okay for dad to be recording them without their awareness"
They're 2 man. You're at the point of questioning whether parents should be allowed to film their infants. Do we think we're off the deep end a bit?
>if I saw some evidence of Meta doing something untoward with this data
going to hold my tongue regarding the majority of this conversation, but i couldn't help myself here.
meta has one of the worst track records of doing untoward things with data. a pattern of abusing its user's data, built over years. if you are still okay with them now, i am doubting your words that anything they could do would make you "dump them immediately".
It's meta - they've been caught doing untoward things at virtually every opportunity. Are you looking for something specific, like the creation of virtual CSAM with them or something? I'm fine with starting out by giving people/companies the benefit of the doubt I guess, but once they have shown you their true colors, you should listen.
I take this story as a clear sign that they are careless & it most likely IS happening at some scale in systems that generate/personalize ad variants, chatbots, suggested interactions, etc. For another example of shipping very inappropriate things:
Back to the original inference, anyway… generative ad Personalization instances DO NOT (afaik) appear in the public repository of ads. Researchers can't see it, but do we have to strain our imaginations to think that things like nudify apps aren't taking advantage of tools that do things like drop user avatars into their pitch? e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1uhy9yn/instagram_...
I don't have a specific citation to offer, but tbh I've seen enough.
I am not an expert but I am pretty sure changing a job is a "qualified life event" that allows an out-of-band change. I hate privatized insurance but I didn't think this thing in particular was a problem.
Well that one is the classic far-right talking point that overpaying to be denied healthcare is preferable to the bogeyman of "wait times." Their other popular talking point is that with private insurance you can choose which doctor explains that your coverage was denied.
Claiming something is far-right is the most common "bla bla bla I'm not listening to your valid factual point because I don't like it" comment on the internet.
The claim that this is a far-right talking point IS a factual point. Not only are you seemingly injecting your personal bias into the article and putting words in the author's mouth, but you are simultaneously negating the fact this is a far-right talking point because "you don't like it." Sheesh.
Catastrophic events seem to wipe people out financially regardless of insurance status. I keep hearing of people divorcing so their former spouse can keep some assets while they are battling cancer. There's just no winning unless you never need care.
