|
|
|
|
|
|
by trashb
2 days ago
|
|
|
Detection, even if "on-device, fully private". Is meant to notify others, the person viewing the image already knows what they are viewing. I would argue that the notifying of others of what (kind of imagery/category) you are viewing, is the main violation of privacy, even if the actual imagery is withheld. Actually withholding the image may make it harder to fight the accusation (in court) if wrongly categorized. For now the category argued seems to be "nude children" but what safeguards are there that prevent another category "politically sensitive"? |
|
|
Are any of us expecting that there are safeguards in today's global political environment? in tomorrow's?
Honestly, the only safeguards against abuse of surveillance are that the surveillance not happen in the first place.
Once it has happened, the only safeguards keeping the owners of the system from using it to coerce and control the masses exist in the form of pitchforks and ropes wielded by the masses, and the days when that was a real potential for repealing any such coercion and control are fully in the distant past.
These systems are made possible and installed beyond the reach of any constituent based consent - see the current condition of Ring cameras, Flock, and the many tools created by Palantir et. al and much like the boiled frog analogy the citizenry has sat in their movie theatre and restaurant seats telling each other soothing lies about how the goal was to make us even safer from ourselves and now we are steps away from the fully immersive per-person verified identity and 24-7 observation of what everything, everyone read, writes, says, and does. Exactly as the 'foil hats' have been telling them would happen if they didn't speak up sooner.
Tough cookies, we all get exactly what we deserve for letting it get this far out of hand. It's no use crying over spilt milk.