The Federal Trade Commission is sending refunds totaling more than $5.6 million to consumers as the result of a settlement with Ring over charges the company allowed employees and contractors to ac
You’re not alone. This isn’t normal and you’re not crazy for not wanting to be spied on just for making the mistake of going outside and walking past someone’s house.
Reporter: Eevoltic
Reason: trolling. they keep replying to every comment saying the first ammendment or some other US thing is more important than privacy lol
Imagine reporting someone for actually contributing to the conversation. Imaging thinking that other countries don’t already have similar laws in place. Don’t you wonder how security cameras are a thing for businesses across literally the entire world?
Just because I outline what specific laws the US follow to allow it doesn’t mean other countries don’t allow it either. This is not a US centric problem. I would challenge you to find a country that DOESN’T Allow you to record your own property. Or I suppose you can just cry to more mod-mail.
Oh man. You’re worried about your neighbors cameras? Wait until you learn about all the stuff they put on traffic lights these days. If you’re on just about any public road, or adjacent properties/sidewalks, you’re ALREADY being recorded by the government. I wouldn’t worry all that much about a random doorbell camera. That’s just one data point. The traffic stuff can track you for miles. Hell… have an accident, your lawyer to subpoena the state for their footage. https://zaneslaw.com/blog/how-to-access-traffic-camera-footage-phoenix/
You don’t have privacy out in public. It doesn’t exist. What you’re all advocating for is that property owners don’t have a right to install security systems on their own property. Or to record events on their property/in public. That’s just plain incorrect.
I did not know mocking people is serious instead of mere contribution to discussion. Is that not what you are doing with the whole defeatism thing? I did not remove your jab comment at privacy initiative, why remove their little jab?
So you also believe that you can determine tone from text. What I see written is a call to action. While context could appear to make it light-hearted, it’s still a call to action. Very much akin to the “in minecraft” “meme” which didn’t pass muster and got someone arrested. Seems odd that a “privacy” caring moderator would tolerate even a “joke” based on taking away someone’s privacy. Jumping to the point of “let’s dox this guy” from where we were in the conversation was not a normal step. Nothing about a camera on private property equates to doxing someone. Just because I see a mail carrier on my cameras doesn’t mean I actually know anything about them. Jumping straight to doxing someone “as a joke” isn’t even reasonable in context if you FORCE a light-hearted nature to the comment.
Nowhere in my “defeatism” did I write a call to action (and if there was one it would be to write your representatives if you’re in the US to change the law) so I’m not sure why you’re equating them. Neither did I actually claim actual defeatism. I’m all for privacy. I’m a huge advocate for it. Someone’s right to their property is a completely different issue which is actually codified. Claiming that your right to privacy supersedes an actual right to property is a bit silly. That’s not “defeatism”.
You’re not alone. This isn’t normal and you’re not crazy for not wanting to be spied on just for making the mistake of going outside and walking past someone’s house.
Imagine reporting someone for actually contributing to the conversation. Imaging thinking that other countries don’t already have similar laws in place. Don’t you wonder how security cameras are a thing for businesses across literally the entire world?
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0JP1OZ/
Just because I outline what specific laws the US follow to allow it doesn’t mean other countries don’t allow it either. This is not a US centric problem. I would challenge you to find a country that DOESN’T Allow you to record your own property. Or I suppose you can just cry to more mod-mail.
Oh man. You’re worried about your neighbors cameras? Wait until you learn about all the stuff they put on traffic lights these days. If you’re on just about any public road, or adjacent properties/sidewalks, you’re ALREADY being recorded by the government. I wouldn’t worry all that much about a random doorbell camera. That’s just one data point. The traffic stuff can track you for miles. Hell… have an accident, your lawyer to subpoena the state for their footage. https://zaneslaw.com/blog/how-to-access-traffic-camera-footage-phoenix/
For example… https://az511.gov/
Businesses have cameras…
You don’t have privacy out in public. It doesn’t exist. What you’re all advocating for is that property owners don’t have a right to install security systems on their own property. Or to record events on their property/in public. That’s just plain incorrect.
Imagine being such a defeatist anti-privacy cuck.
I mean… find me a country that doesn’t allow you to install cameras on your own private property and I’ll admit defeat. How about that?
Edit: and since you’re already here moderator… How about you remove the call to action for doxing someone?
Doxxing who? Is this not just a discussion? Your comment was reported yet not removed.
https://lemmy.ml/comment/10636070
Which is a call to action. A little bit down the comment thread.
I did not know mocking people is serious instead of mere contribution to discussion. Is that not what you are doing with the whole defeatism thing? I did not remove your jab comment at privacy initiative, why remove their little jab?
So you also believe that you can determine tone from text. What I see written is a call to action. While context could appear to make it light-hearted, it’s still a call to action. Very much akin to the “in minecraft” “meme” which didn’t pass muster and got someone arrested. Seems odd that a “privacy” caring moderator would tolerate even a “joke” based on taking away someone’s privacy. Jumping to the point of “let’s dox this guy” from where we were in the conversation was not a normal step. Nothing about a camera on private property equates to doxing someone. Just because I see a mail carrier on my cameras doesn’t mean I actually know anything about them. Jumping straight to doxing someone “as a joke” isn’t even reasonable in context if you FORCE a light-hearted nature to the comment.
Nowhere in my “defeatism” did I write a call to action (and if there was one it would be to write your representatives if you’re in the US to change the law) so I’m not sure why you’re equating them. Neither did I actually claim actual defeatism. I’m all for privacy. I’m a huge advocate for it. Someone’s right to their property is a completely different issue which is actually codified. Claiming that your right to privacy supersedes an actual right to property is a bit silly. That’s not “defeatism”.