This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
So someone tried to steal one of the robots, and the robot company was keen to give the footage to the cops?
There's a lot of potential for fuckery here, but dishonestly spinning this non-issue to look like some kind of crisis distracts from real problems with privacy and the police. Hack "journalists".
This specific case is like saying someone tried to steal your car that had a dash cam in it and you agreed to send the footage to the police.
Yeah they really buried some critical information on this one. I get the point of the article about general surveillance but when people feel tricked they get burned out on the issue and trust the media less. They could have made the point they wanted without making it clickbait.
After finding out Ring lets police access their camera footage at will, I'm wary of any other instances of the same. This might not rise to this level yet but the possibility exists, as you mentioned.
(late to respond here - sorry) As I said, the risk is certainly there, but writing stories like this that so dishonestly frame a non-issue sets the expectation that people are going to kick up a fuss about every non-issue, so any concerns along these lines should simply be ignored. This means that the real issues will be dismissed when they do inevitably arise.
"Food Delivery Robots Are Feeding Camera Footage to the LAPD, Internal Emails Show" implies secretive, leaked collusion with the cops to stream live video to them... a more accurate headline (that fails to beat a story out of nothing) would be "Robotics company gives footage of attack on its robot to police".
Yes but that's a practice as old as the profession itself. Write a headline that's not legally a lie, regardless of the implications, for the attention. It's not something you can get rid of so long as they make money on said attention.
The Ring situation however is a real issue. Police can just grab footage from those because the company allows it and it's really fucked up.
It's an old practice, not an excusable one. Any "news" outlet pushing this misleading trash out should face similar consequences to false advertising without the need to initiate litigation (this isn't libellous for example).
But yeah, the ring situation is indeed very real, entirely fucked, and unlikely to change until their sales start taking a kicking.
Somebody tried to steal a robot and was surprised that video footage from the robot was used as evidence?
Well, I don’t think that’s the profound bit, more, that, you have an army of video surveillance robots. The time you are walking down the street being recorded is only ever increasing. Granted, every official is going to come at it from the “reduced crime” stat, which, surveillance does combat, but, it’s a slippery slope.
If they had cause, I’m sure the majority of my private conversations, and where I’ve been have all been recorded and could be used against me in court. Am I a criminal? No. I’m not “scared” of it necessarily. I don’t think it’s ethical though.
The issue is that if a crime is committed then the police will be interested in gathering any video footage they can get their hands on (I've had it at work where I've been asked for CCTV footage from cameras that may have had an outside chance of capturing something important). If a company is sending robots out with cameras on them, and they are recording footage, then that footage is going to be requested (whether the company admits to working with the police or not).
Should there be this many cameras watching our every move? Probably not, but as the cameras are there, they are going to be used, and people should expect to be recorded - especially if they are committing a crime.
I agree. And I most definitely understand, you don’t have, not should you expect a right to privacy the second you leave your front door. (Arguably before that too, but that’s neither here nor there.)
I think what bothers me most is, I don’t want, let’s say my walking pattern in a city, monitored(it already is) to then have some camera see that I’m having a “bad day” then in inundated with ads that, “based on my profile, x emotion shows I’ll spend money here.” Idk. It just feels very dystopian, if that reasoning makes sense. Though, it’s sorta like climate change, it’s inevitable and the individual is essentially powerless.
Absolutely agree, that's the stuff of science fiction and hopefully stays in the fiction realm.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
I guess the Internet of things just became the Internet of mobile surveillance cameras.
Is timeline as quickly becoming very dystopian.
Where can I get one of those face scrambling masks from A Scanner Darkly?
The mask industry pivoted from covid-19 to copvid-23
As a link aggregation site, I wish lemmy had the ability to let me hide links from specific domain names. Like, any clickbait or ragebait "news" sites could get added to my personal list so I don't have to see them anymore.
Sync on android has this function. I blocked YouTube and it's associated domains.
Also going to block this one, this story is such bad journalism.