|
|
|
|
|
by dagmx
1637 days ago
|
|
Specifically, this thread originated with the Kyle Rittenhouse trial which would be video. So for the average person, it would be 8/16mm. Even for stills, 110/126 was very common. As for your last point, it only ensured privacy from the poor. Privacy was always invaded by those with means like paparazzi. There's also the flip side that the prevalence of digital has let people capture pivotal moments they wouldn't have been able to otherwise, including generation defining moments like the murder of George Floyd. |
|
Now we spy on poor people, use AI to analyze the photos at scale, while the rich got anti-paparazzi laws put in places like EU and CA.
In this context, the Rittenhouse video would not exist and it would be better if it didn't. The prosecution, arguably, should get disbarred for the shenanigans they pulled (no discovery and dumping it in the last moment, giving a modified version, lying about the provenance).
As to George Floyd, cameras have done much more to erode our civil liberties than they have put bad cops away.