Far too many ways this could be abused, even if participation remains voluntary. But I'd bet it wouldn't.
Then the first logical follow-up would be a mandate that all existing cameras be on an accessible network, along with the storage. Then there'd be requirements that all publicly accessible spaces be visible. Followed by private corporate or business spaces.
Finally it would be a full-on The Circle / 1984 mashup.
I was naïve and agreed with the Patriot Act. Wow, was I wrong about giving government that hammer. Used to work nights and wife was alone so I have 7 cameras inside and out. No way in hell would I give access to anyone but family (sons in CA, IA, and MD). And unless it served what I thought was a good purpose for ME or HER, I'd not grant copies of images upon request. Otherwise, subpoena it if you dare. My guns drowned and my had drive is flaky as hell.
how many people put the alexa device and cameras hooked to wifi in thier home and had it abused by outsiders? cctv cameras recording in business are enough. funny the ones screaming to defund police are in favor of these “programs”…. this constant erosion of Freedom will never go away unless We the People stop it
I've always refused to have an Alexa in my home. I received one as a Christmas gift one time, and it was the fastest re-gifting ever. Never opened it, never plugged it in or set it up; we got it re-homed and out the door the same day (and the new owners rather enjoyed the gift -- good for them, but not for us).
And yeah, why is it the same people screaming to defund the police, want to give police more surveillance power? There's a cognitive disconnect there, for sure.
-- "... suddenly the city council changes its mind and does not care if police surveil the inside of your business and it would be “legal” because you once gave consent to access the system."
Police and district/state attorneys are notorious about abusing "consent" this way -- as in, 10 years ago you invited officers into your home to give a statement involving a crime against you. To them, that constitutes "consent" to enter, and because there was no explicit expiration attached, it stands for all time. If you're ever accused of a crime, someone will feel they can enter and search without a warrant because they have your consent, and any efforts on your part to challenge or revoke that consent will be seen as evidence of guilt and cover-up.
The long and short is, if you give consent, sooner or later someone is *going* to abuse it.
-- “You have absolutely no idea unless you’ve been a victim of crime, how important it is to have your crime solved and if it’s a rape or its a murder, you want that crime solved and you want it solved so you can get that person off the street and have justice,” said Verna Wyatt, co-founder of Tennessee Voices for Victims.
True, but the business' "voluntary" inclusion and "consent" will not be limited to rape and murder investigations, or *criminal* investigations for that matter. It will be used for any and all investigations, for any and all infractions or manhunts or suspicions or inquiries, or just because some officer feels like peeping. And once consent is given, there's little you can do about it; "opting out" is much more difficult than opting in (see above).
On top of that, if the "good guys" have access to those cameras, rest assured the "bad guys" do as well. No system is 100% secure (and you'd be surprised how many have little or no built-in security at all), so your consent to the "good guys" will also open the door for thieves and ne'er-do-wells to scope out your business for potential criminal actions.
Finally, in the end, you're dealing with politicians; the person sitting in that seat and making those promises now probably won't be there in 5 or 10 years. The new person will NOT have agreed to any such promises, is NOT required to abide by them, and might have some VERY different ideas about what your consent entails.
But you gave consent, so that's your problem, not theirs.
Yeah, no thanks.
Far too many ways this could be abused, even if participation remains voluntary. But I'd bet it wouldn't.
Then the first logical follow-up would be a mandate that all existing cameras be on an accessible network, along with the storage. Then there'd be requirements that all publicly accessible spaces be visible. Followed by private corporate or business spaces.
Finally it would be a full-on The Circle / 1984 mashup.
I was naïve and agreed with the Patriot Act. Wow, was I wrong about giving government that hammer. Used to work nights and wife was alone so I have 7 cameras inside and out. No way in hell would I give access to anyone but family (sons in CA, IA, and MD). And unless it served what I thought was a good purpose for ME or HER, I'd not grant copies of images upon request. Otherwise, subpoena it if you dare. My guns drowned and my had drive is flaky as hell.
how many people put the alexa device and cameras hooked to wifi in thier home and had it abused by outsiders? cctv cameras recording in business are enough. funny the ones screaming to defund police are in favor of these “programs”…. this constant erosion of Freedom will never go away unless We the People stop it
I've always refused to have an Alexa in my home. I received one as a Christmas gift one time, and it was the fastest re-gifting ever. Never opened it, never plugged it in or set it up; we got it re-homed and out the door the same day (and the new owners rather enjoyed the gift -- good for them, but not for us).
And yeah, why is it the same people screaming to defund the police, want to give police more surveillance power? There's a cognitive disconnect there, for sure.
I have Fire Stick and I perforated the microphone just to make sure
Same with the 'smart' Roku remote..
From 1755, a single sentence puts the issue to rest.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Ben Franklin.
-- "... suddenly the city council changes its mind and does not care if police surveil the inside of your business and it would be “legal” because you once gave consent to access the system."
Police and district/state attorneys are notorious about abusing "consent" this way -- as in, 10 years ago you invited officers into your home to give a statement involving a crime against you. To them, that constitutes "consent" to enter, and because there was no explicit expiration attached, it stands for all time. If you're ever accused of a crime, someone will feel they can enter and search without a warrant because they have your consent, and any efforts on your part to challenge or revoke that consent will be seen as evidence of guilt and cover-up.
The long and short is, if you give consent, sooner or later someone is *going* to abuse it.
-- “You have absolutely no idea unless you’ve been a victim of crime, how important it is to have your crime solved and if it’s a rape or its a murder, you want that crime solved and you want it solved so you can get that person off the street and have justice,” said Verna Wyatt, co-founder of Tennessee Voices for Victims.
True, but the business' "voluntary" inclusion and "consent" will not be limited to rape and murder investigations, or *criminal* investigations for that matter. It will be used for any and all investigations, for any and all infractions or manhunts or suspicions or inquiries, or just because some officer feels like peeping. And once consent is given, there's little you can do about it; "opting out" is much more difficult than opting in (see above).
On top of that, if the "good guys" have access to those cameras, rest assured the "bad guys" do as well. No system is 100% secure (and you'd be surprised how many have little or no built-in security at all), so your consent to the "good guys" will also open the door for thieves and ne'er-do-wells to scope out your business for potential criminal actions.
Finally, in the end, you're dealing with politicians; the person sitting in that seat and making those promises now probably won't be there in 5 or 10 years. The new person will NOT have agreed to any such promises, is NOT required to abide by them, and might have some VERY different ideas about what your consent entails.
But you gave consent, so that's your problem, not theirs.
Yeah, and it is ILLEGAL to build a registration database from the information on the 4473 forms too..