Slashdot Mirror
The Upsides of a Surveillance Society
theodp writes Citing the comeuppance of ESPN reporter Britt McHenry, who was suspended from her job after her filmed ad-hominem attack on a person McHenry deemed to be beneath her in terms of appearance, education, wealth, class, status went viral, The Atlantic's Megan Garber writes that one silver lining of the omnipresence of cameras it that the possibility of exposure can also encourage us to be a little kinder to each other. "Terrible behavior," Garber writes, "whether cruel or violent or something in between, has a greater possibility than it ever has before of being exposed. Just as Uber tracks ratings for both its drivers and its users, and just as Yelp can be a source of shaming for businesses and customers alike, technology at large has afforded a reciprocity between people who, in a previous era, would have occupied different places on the spectrum of power. Which can, again, be a bad thing — but which can also, in McHenry's case, be an extremely beneficial one. It's good that her behavior has been exposed. It's good that her story going viral might discourage similar behavior from other people. It's good that she has publicly promised 'to learn from this mistake.'"
while it can be used to make people "kinder" it can also be used for abuse. just look at all the companies that are being tricked into making statements, and being bombarded by the social mobs over it.
Its not making people be nicer, its helping lonely people harass others
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
It is only a problem when somebody (state/corp) has the advantage.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
To do so implies that a camera is always trained on me when in fact, that's almost never the case. The article itself does make an interesting point about people being more reluctant to act like a fool when they know a stranger with a camera is likely to catch it all. But to call that a "surveillance society" is false sensationalism.
Cheer up! In totalitarian dictatorships there's less petty crime, like shoplifting and drug dealing.
That's what they tell you.
lucm, indeed.
But what a cunt. I just wanted to clarify that.
lucm, indeed.
Yes, people shouldn't be raging assholes but in what way is shaming the occasional raging asshole justification for a surveillance society?
This like... pros and cons of an alien invasion from outer space.
On the down side we're all going to be slaves.
But on the plus side we have ray guns now. We don't control the ray guns... they're mostly pointed at us and our overlords exploit their advantages ruthlessly... but hey... ray guns.
I mean seriously, do we control these cameras at all? No. They're not controlled by the public. The public in fact didn't even want them. They were IMPOSED and they serve the whims of whomever is in charge of the security system.
So we're told "hey good news guys, the upside of the alien invasion is that your alien overlords will occasionally disintegrate the occasionally asshole of your pathetic squishy species. ALL HAIL YOUR TENTACLE MASTERS!"
What the actual fuck.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
There's a difference between a "surveillance society" which is where a small class of people or organizations owns or has access to all the surveillance, or just a "public society" where lots of private individuals have cameras, phones, etc., and decent means of communication. In the latter case, it's the people (society) who actually have the power. It's much more democratic, i.e. "I'm publicly shaming this person because the vast majority of people feel their behavior is unacceptable." In the former, it's about centralized power, i.e. "Make this person's life miserable because they're a threat to my power." I'm all for distributed cameras and communications, I just wish people would keep the data local by default, and not provide it so willingly to 3rd parties to aggregate it.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
The video that was released has been edited. Let's see the whole unedited clip of the encounter.
Maybe it's not kindness if you need cameras. Not mentioning all the downsides...
While this sometimes pays off, when circumstances line up correctly, it is vital to keep the limitations in mind:
Lower cost has made it much more likely that random bystanders have some level of video recording, rather than none; but entities with ample resources also take advantage of reduced costs, which is why, say, nontrivial areas of the developed world are effectively saturated with automated LPR systems. There is a win for those cases where it previously would have been the word of someone who counts vs. the word of some nobody; but elsewhere reduced costs and improve capabilities make having a big budget and legal power even more useful.
Improved surveillance only changes the game at the 'evidence' stage. If legal, public, or both, standards aren't sufficiently in your favor, improved evidence is anywhere from irrelevant to actively harmful. You can have all the evidence you want; but if the DA refuses to indict, or the 'viral' pile-on targets the victim rather than the aggressor, it doesn't help you much. Had McHenry's tirade been a bit cleverer, or her target a shade more unsympathetic, odds are good that the attendant in question would be being hounded as we speak.
I was beaten in 2011 by 2 teenagers, and videotaped(?!) by a 3rd. When I initially filed the police report, it was a simple assault. When the police department found the video, it became a felony.
tl;dr: Stupidity knows now bounds.
--sf
Honestly I think the kind of person who is likely to go off on such a petty rant isn't going to give a damn if there's a camera there or not. Their sense of superiority and ego is such that they don't actually think at any moment that they are wrong, so what difference would a camera make? It's like saying that the guy with anger issues will not have a road rage episode because of a camera. He's not thinking about the camera - he's off in his own little rage world temporarily but completely disconnected from reality.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
If one watches the towing company "reality shows", one would think that her behaviour is normal and acceptable.
The reporter used words and not violence while some of the customers on the towing "reality shows" resort to violence.
ESPN has no one to blame accept themselves and their industry to produce and broadcast the garbage they show.
The above may or may be sarcastic. You decide. YMMV
The human race has been modifying their behaviour* in the face of perceived pervasive surveillance for millenia. I think they used to call it "God."
(* I was going to say "been acting nicer than they otherwise would," but, eh, doesn't always work out that way)
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Kinda gives a new slant to "As Seen On TV".
I'm all for publicly shaming people who act like assholes... what really irks me is when people are internet-shamed for being mentally ill/deviant/weird.
It's great that you can walk in to a private business that has forced you to do business with it (car-towing company), lose your temper in this essentially private setting because they are (in all probability) treating you like shit and/or ripping you off, and have that business post a video of this on the internet without your consent, having edited out the parts of the video where they said/did things that incited you in the first place.
That reporter clearly just lost her temper and was trying to say whatever seemed like it would be most hurtful. It's not clear at all that she is any more elitist than most people in positions of prestige. For all we know, her sentiment could have been justified, and given the apparently predatory towing company she was dealing with, it probably was. If the employee was "just doing her job", but that job involves ripping people off, I have no sympathy. Pretty crazy how people are calling for the reporter's head for this.
It's like having a birthday party as a kid, and your mom invites your bullies. They're nice for the duration of the party, but their presence ruins the day.
Whether it is surveillance by the state, corporations, or individuals, the issue (in my opinion) is not with the collection of data. It is with how the data is used.
Let's say that you were at a party and did something unbecoming, albeit still legal. Someone got a video of it, but no harm is done because the act and the video fade into a distant memory. Except that it doesn't disappear. Perhaps someone digs it up as a funny story, or because they're bitter about something you've done, or because there is some sort of way for them to benefit from the situation. Now you have people looking at something that is a snapshot in time that doesn't reflect who you are, or even who you were. Perhaps the video didn't capture the context, or maybe the context was removed from it. It has the potential to be damaging.
Actually, it can be more damaging than a video captured by a police or business surveillance camera. In many countries, the police have restrictions on how data is collected and handled. If it isn't being used for an investigation, they simply cannot disclose that information. If a case goes to court, you have an independent judiciary body examining it as evidence. Businesses don't have the same restrictions, but they can get themselves into legal hot water if they use or disclose data in an inappropriate manner. Contrast that to individuals, who are much less likely to be conscious of the boundaries between private and public information or who may not be thinking of the consequences of their actions. Unlike institutions, a lot of what they observe will simply end up as gossip.
I've been around bulls and I've been around sheep. The odds of survival aren't what you think.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
... from Robert Heinlein. In both cases, the consequences of rude behaviour are much greater.
I worry most about the years-later consequences of surveillence on politicians and other leaders. They all seem to have sordid episodes, and this leaves them highly succeptible to hidden blackmail/pressure by data-holders. We will never know how they are manipulated and abuse their wide discretionary powers.
Not to protect "the little children" but to protect "the pervy pols."
The upside, if you're a man, is that a camera can keep you out of jail WHEN a false allegation is made against you. In fact, it may be the only thing that does given the current anti-male state of the law.
All I see is the rise of Mob rule and lack of mutual respect and tolerance.
Force is the least effective means of promoting "good" behavior and Mob rule is an ineffective means of governance.
I am increasingly worried about the role Media whoring for attention and profit is having on society.
TL;DR: The upside of being under continuous surveillance is that everyone else is too. It is the same argument as, "Because terrorists might get caught."
Here's just one example of the downside: Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and similar will all have zero attendance as soon as employers stop hiring people who have been seen at an AA/NA meeting. That will be a reality within ten years, as private license plate tracking databases come online.
Doubt it? Ask yourself this: Would a typical "profit over everything" manager hire someone he knew was in NA? That guy is going to abuse these databases as they come online. That is reality.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
It's nowhere close to as nice as OP portrays.
The example brought up- the ludicrous cuntly behavior of Britt going off on some poor schmuckette- is gratifying because she's "getting hers". But, lets consider a few things:
1- Britt had no reason to suspect she was being recorded (beyond the general assumption that any building or person in America *could* be "taping" you now). She acted based on assumptions that weren't true.
2- Britt has a job where public relations are extremely important, and is a celebrity (not "was", I'm certainly a lot more interested in someone who openly shits on tow companies, notoriously sketchy organizations that damage vehicles and will tow legal vehicles if they can claim that the little whatever that lets you park legally could be argued to not be perfectly visible, or if can be dislodged in towing- so if she pops up and rants about stuff, hey, I'll watch)
3- Who controls the cameras is the big deal. What if, in addition to the rant delivered by her, we saw EVERYTHING that happened in that business, from the cabs of the tow trucks to the office politics in the back to their normal customer relations? By selecting just what your foes do at a specific time, you obviously gain a great deal of control, because your shit is flushed and theirs is on youtube forever.
The medium benefits of cameras seem to be what we see in Russia from dash cams- inability of insurance companies to welch on payments, and greater evidence of actually criminal dealings on the road.
The biggest benefits of cameras will be their effect on law enforcement, and if we want to actually reap those benefits (instead of just making people who can have a short temper unemployable in even more jobs than they already are), we'll need protections for the numerous police who routinely order people to stop filming (this should not ever be something a policeman can say), attack people legally and extralegally for putting up their crimes, and actually hold them accountable for the absurd beatings that they suddenly started dealing out to poor people and anyone who wouldn't normally be believed in court- beatings that seemingly began the moment that everyone got cameras. Probably those two related, hrm, what's that correlation...
So it doesn't matter that some hot tempered cutie with a media job went off on some random people. That's not really helping society that she can't keep her ESPN job.
The workaround for (1) is that people will act like they are being recorded, which naively means that they will switch from aggression to bating and passive aggression. If they ALSO have cameras (and hidden cameras are cheap, and will become moreso), then the goal becomes to bait the other party to either committing a crime (easier in some situations than others) or crucifying themselves in the court of public opinion. We can laugh at the people who haven't adapted to this new ruleset fast enough, but it's STILL a game, and it will still be won by the same sociopaths that always are good at these games.
(2) is an issue because more and more jobs will fall into this category, resulting in minor altercations yielding a harsh streak of unemployment into a society already hellbent on assuming that ability is immediately rewarded with steady employment. While celebrities have a huge amount of support systems to fall back on ("celebrity does a heel-turn" is not a death knell by any means to their public life), many people do not. The natural assumption of the video seems to be that if someone is caught doing something on tape, that this is representative of their entire life, a brief 30 second temper tantrum serving as a summary of their entire life. This background assumption is based on what USED to be the truth, and the same logic that the legal system uses to dole out large punishments for minor violations- that cameras (observing agents in general) were so rare that if someone got caught ranting on camera (or speeding on some empty highway) that it serves as a *representation of tha
Fake it 'til you feel it.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
We more or less achieved that when large numbers of people had phones that included cameras. And it didn't matter that lots of people weren't carry those phones, as long as we had a certain critical mass.
And even that has potential for abuse when incomplete recordings were taken out of context.
But that's not what the surveillance society 'debate' is about. And Garber knows that.
I hear that the trains are very timely as well!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
To be fair, her car was towed by a company that has a reputation for illegal towing. I had this happen to me once and I wanted to burn down the business with everyone inside.
Having you car towed illegally is a pretty disturbing experience. You know it wasn't parked illegally, yet it's gone. Was it stolen? You call the police, they show up hours later only to tell you it was towed and then leave. You are out hours of time and then you get to the tow company and they want hundreds of dollars. No one in authority cares about it because you got it back and no one was hurt. Let's just call this a "micro-agression"
Fuck them and fuck the attendant, who is probably complicit in the scheme.
No child left behind.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There are societies like Iran where people have two personalities. What is shown outside and what is in the compound (which can be one home, or others attached by private passages.)
Same stuff happens here. Want to see proof? Play a modern FPS in multiplayer mode. The 13 year olds can curse well enough it will make a Marine gunnery sargent blush.
Having to have two personas also causes people to crack. This is why we have had more lone wolf attacks against targets in the past two years than we have in the preceding two decades.
So, yes, people will adopt a sheepish, "yessa, massa" persona... but as soon as those cameras as gone, they are going to act like the kids out of "Lord of the Flies", pigsticker up the hog's ass and everything.
So if someone went and, say, cut a deep scar right across her face...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You have a rather odd concept of the looks and the space travels of Icelanders...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They were under constant watch of the Stasi
Why don't you guys go ask the former residents of the East Germany and see if they prefer to be "kinder to each others" when under surveillance or to have their liberty back ... even if they have to endure the consequence of having more people being rude to each others
TFA should be a warning sign - that TPTB is actively trying to inject a meme / an idea into people's mindset that the society would be somehow *nicer* if everybody are under surveillance
I thought you guys are supposed to have above average IQ, but looking at the way you guys are commenting ... sigh !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
All I want to say is it will make people less tolerant about criticism.
We already have society full of pricks who can't accept having their stupid religious idea ridiculed. And then they want to go out kill people because of that.
HURRAY! SUCH PROGRESS!
So what if I call someone an idiot. That's my opinion.
Reasonable people should understand anyone can have any opinion and that's ok. One can have different ones. Just because I think you're an idiot doesn't necessarily mean you are one according to someone else. Live with it.
Also chances are I'll say what's in my mind anyway because I'm used to do it.
If I where to hold back maybe I to would have to resort to go around killing people I didn't liked because there was no way to argue things.
I'm glad I can use my voice. Or fingers.
As for your comment parent yeah it suck that stuff is around forever. Here in Sweden we've got this communist criminal group who mine their own data to use against people of what they believe is the wrong opinion.
People complain if someone who don't like immigrants is in court where immigrants are tried for something possibly even whatever they should be allowed to stay or not.
But then again what if it was people who think we should have no borders and that hiding immigrants was ok and that communism was great? Those people exist too.
Shouldn't the important part be that people could divide their interest and the law and judge based on the law instead?
Anyway, to have this private interest group run around throwing old data around like it matter is just ridiculous.
And yeah. I'll still say what's on my mind thank you.
People go like "Oh people are bullied much more now" or whatever, "lots more hate reported", yeah, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE AWARE / IT SIT AROUND. So freaking what?
I doubt people behave worse. It's just that if I write on a wall on the Internet that you suck then it may stay around forever whereas if I just tell someone then the message is kinda lost after that. Or at least very hard to pick up again.
Car Towing is legalized theft. Though I'm sure there are some by the book towers in my experience the vast majority are a bunch of thieving crooks. They will take cars that aren't even in violation and don't even get me started on the storage fees.
Britt likely had a very good reason for what she did. Her car was stolen and only given back to her after paying a huge blackmail fee.
I've once had the fortune (misfortune?) of living in East Germany for a year, back when the Berlin Wall existed. Do you want to know what living surveillance state is like? It's a place where you are ALWAYS on guard. You can never be honest with anyone - your teacher in school could be with the government, your best friend could be undercover, even your own family could be recruited. You have to bottle up everything inside yourself, and you present this lovely facade to the public. Many, especially those of us from the west, often wonder why people from Russia are so guarded. You want to know why? Because the alternative is rotting in jail, or even being assassinated. What this idiotic, moronic , IGNORANT author proposes is a complete regression of 300 years of progress towards a free society, and not just in America. If he can't stand people being impolite, then very well - I expect him to thank me when he is inside a gulag for going to a gay rights meeting, just as he had to thank me when I hauled off his grandmother for being related to him (she's equally guilty by being in his immediate family). THAT is the society he will live in, but at least he'll never half to bear the terrible injustice of someone calling him an idiot. And now I think I know why he's called that.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Sousveillance, sure.
And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good... Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
BM was parked in a lot whose business had closed two hours earlier.
BM issued her "apology" through Twitter and not directly to the clerk at the towing office.
BM is bm
Requiring everyone to carry a side arm also, will increase more cooperative social behavior.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
A "surveillance society" is a society in which the state intrudes into people's private lives, into their private data, and their homes. There is nothing good about such a society. And the surveillance is asymmetric: the state can record you, but government officials are largely protected from your scrutiny.
Private citizens, on the other hand, can only record each other in public, or on private property with the permission of the private property owner. That is not a "surveillance society", it's simple, basic property rights and freedom of speech. It's also symmetric: everybody has the same rights. We've had that since the founding of this nation. Sure, in the past, you could only record things in writing, now you can do it as video, but the principle is the same.
What is left in a situation of total surveillance is NOT a society. It's a panopticon prison ward. And the only rule is "thou shalt not get caught".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Actually, in typical totalitarian societies, drug dealers usually make arrangements with the "authorities". The thing is that totalitarian societies care not one bit about the welfare of their citizens, they only keep up appearances. What then happens in addition is that everybody on drugs is known to the authorities and if any of them ever voices a critical thought, they will be publicly crucified. All that are behave like the sheep they are supposed to be are left alone.
So, no, expecting that crime against citizens is less in authoritarian societies is not realistic. The one exception are some theocracies and quasi-theocracies where they are true believers and even see thinking anything else than the church/party line is a capital offense. There you actually may get less crime. The cost is extreme, though.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The only thing worse than people like this and their comments.
Are the seriously disingenuous apologies.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I'm not so sure the comeuppance of the slattern justifies the title "upside of surveillance".
I rather put up with this **** than live in a surveillance society.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
They have to think happy thoughts and say happy things because once displeased, the monster can wish them into a cornfield or change them into a grotesque, walking horror. This particular monster can read minds, you see. He knows every thought, he can feel every emotion. Oh yes, I did forget something, didn't I? I forgot to introduce you to the monster. This is the monster. His name is Anthony Fremont. He's six years old, with a cute little-boy face and blue, guileless eyes. But when those eyes look at you, you'd better start thinking happy thoughts, because the mind behind them is absolutely in charge. This is the Twilight Zone.
The problem is that we live in a society where a large number those that traditionally stood on the side of privacy (liberals, minorities etc.) have realized that surveillance can be a very useful tool to achieve the same ends that they previously wanted privacy for.
Republican presidental candidate caught making derogatory comments on certain voter groups? Cool.
Basketball club owner recorded making racist remarks on a private phone call and forced to sell his shares? Awesome.
Internal Email history of released on the web? What a nice reading for the weekend!
It es inevitable that the liberal movement will split about this at some point: Those who want true freedom respecting even opposing opinions, as long as they are not violent, and radical idealists with an agenda who see surveillance and conformism as more effective tools to shape their utopia. It will be interesting to see on which side the companies most capable of total surveillance - Google, Apple, Microsoft - will end up.
BM was parked in a lot whose business had closed two hours earlier.
If the business was closed, then what was the harm in her parking there?
Did the business complain, or did the towing company take her car on their own initiative?
Is there any regulatory limit on how much a towing company can demand from car owners?
Does the business get a kickback, for their participation in this extortion racket?
Remember that there would have been no charges filed in the Walter Scott case had there not been any video that conflicted with the official police story. I'm all for more surveillance _of_ police, so long as it's not kept secret.
(insert witty/esoteric/dumb quote here)
why must conservatives always champion the jerks who treat other human beings like garbage? of course the right wing has taken up this spoiled reporter's cause. you could have predicted that outcome the moment the video went viral. the "anti politically correct" police are far worse than the PC police. perhaps society is becoming too homogenized, sure, but people are wise to err on the side of kindness as opposed to rotten indecency.
I am interested in how this private company gets away with leaking this footage to the press to shame this woman. While what she did was not great, there should be some expectation of privacy in ordinary life. Obviously if this woman knew the footage was going to be public she may have behaved differently, but the company taking a private rude conversation public for all to see, should be liable damages to her reputation. It is not illegal to be a bitch, but she is suffering very real consequences.
Fuck them
Yes, totally agree. Line all of them up against a wall in Utah please.
and fuck the attendant, who is probably complicit in the scheme.
Disagree there. The attendant is most likely a minimum wage working hanging on to a job to make a living. I don't think a lot of people would like to have that job. That worker did not deserve that treatment. The attack was not aimed at the company or even at the fact that a car was being towed, but merely to humiliate someone in a low-income job who is most likely struggling to meet ends (otherwise, why take such a shitty job?). All out of sheer frustration.
Being nicer would probably have helped a lot more. I had a similar experience the other day. A company did something I did not like, in fact, I was more than pissed. I called the company and before a started my rant, I told the person on the other line: "I know you're only picking up the phone so what I'm about to say is nothing personal. BUT I AM PISSED LIKE CRAZY FOR COMPANY XYZ TO DO ABC". She totally understood ("yes sir, I'd be quite upset as well), and fixed the problem on the spot, apologized on behalf of the company and sent an internal note to prevent this from happening again.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Franco's Spain falls under what I called "quasi-theocracy". Yugoslavia way back also qualifies (I talked to some people that grew up in it), as does Northern Korea.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Unless you are actually somebody that qualifies as a human being. Then the priorities are reversed.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Casteism
This article makes little sense. The suggestion that the social surveillance would modify bad behaviour is disproved by the example. The attendant warned her that she is being surveilled and that the video may be released ("I will play the video, be careful"). She noted the camera, and then continued with the bad behaviour anyway. Maintaining an awareness of surveillance and the implications of such surveillance continuously or in periods of high stress is difficult. This is not to say that surveillance has no effect, but the impact varies based on the situation. If you have time and the capacity to consider the impact of a behaviour, say where the cause and effect is clear (making a threat to the TSA in an airport for example), you might modify the behaviour. If the moral standard is unclear (Joking on twitter about airplane wifi) or the effect is less clear (insulting another gamer) you might not modify the behaviour. Rolling out surveillance is not a cure for social ills and those that have lived under social surveillance systems (such as East Germany) will not struggle to recount examples of negative impact.
TL;DR Lady knew she was on camera and was bitchy anyway therefore 'surveillance makes people be good' thing is BS.
People like you are what has propped up every totalitarian regime in history. You are cattle. Better life free than die in chains.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Actually, the attendant pointed out the camera several times - and the fact that she was being recorded.
Even more than that, she identified herself as a celebrity and that she would post some crap about it all over TV.
So no sympathies at all. Even less so when you're trying to exert influence over others by using your authority.
And definitely no sympathy for her situation, because it was pointed out that everything she was doing and say was being recorded.
Perhaps her car was towed illegally. That doesn't excuse you for harassing the attendant and trying to use your position of power to influence them. Especially as the attendant repeatedly notifies her that she's under surveillance.
Anyhow, the response is not to be "nice" or "polite", it's to be "diplomatic". There's a time and a place for everything, and a time and a place where something is inappropriate. I don't know if it's social media or what, but it seems to have created a pile of self-entitled people who can muster up twitter to "shame" people and companies. Oh no, my package hasn't arrived yet? Tweet the company is awful and doesn't keep promises. Voila, package is now at door! Company didn't give me another free sample? Tweet, and there it is!
Yeah, some of the stories they tell about Wallachia under Vlad the Impaler, the poster child for the "law and order" attitude. People were safe, well, as long as Vlad had no reason, good or not, to take action against them.
Ever notice that those people who are for "law and order" tend to be for order and against law?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The answers to your question depend on where you are asking them. In most places it is illegal for a tow truck to tow a car which is not legally parked unless specifically asked by the property owner or a police officer (in which case you will also get a ticket). Some businesses(read as slumlords) enter into an agreement with towing companies giving them the freedom to patrol the parking lot and tow anyone who does not have their parking permit showing.
Then there are places like Newport News, Virginia... Where city ordinances give tow companies the ability to tow anyone who is "illegally parked". I will also assure you that they abuse this privilege as much as they possibly can.
On the money side, no, there is not a limit on what they can charge which I have heard of anywhere. There is a fixed amount the tow company can charge when the towing is ordered by the police in Virginia, but it only applies when the police call them.
/end rant
In an armed society that relies on combat to enforce social mores, some people are going to have license to be real assholes, because they're better at fighting than almost anybody else. Run up a string of dead opponents and nobody's going to stop you from doing anything. Some combat specialists are going to take money to get into a duel with a specific target. It's NOT a good idea.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And there a difference between "government and industry watching your every move" versus "portable recording devices easily available"
I don't want to be recorded and tracked 24/7 by government/industry, but I don't particular have an issue with the people around me having cameras. Yes, somebody could catch me at a bad moment, but they can also film a lot of good things such as abuse of power (e.g. cop shooting fleeing suspect in the back and then planting a taser on the body), he-said-she-said (dashcams of car accidents, somebody assaulting a cop and saying it was abusive police), etc.
Public shaming of true a-holes isn't a terrible thing as well, so long as we don't get to the point where neighbours are posting our pictures wanted-ad style because a cat crapped on somebody's petunias once.
If the business was closed, then what was the harm in her parking there? None. There's no harm in me parking in your driveway when I'm not there either.
Did the business complain, or did the towing company take her car on their own initiative? Usually businesses sign contracts to allow the towing companies to patrol their lots and tow violators.
Is there any regulatory limit on how much a towing company can demand from car owners? Yes, in most jurisdictions.
Does the business get a kickback, for their participation in this extortion racket? Why would they? They get their lots patrolled for free -- that's their kickback.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I said nothing about combat being allowed. You assume a "Wild West" lack of law enforcement. Like today, anyone threatening or using firearms without justification would be caught on camera, warrents would be issued, and police would serve them with a justified level of force (including SWAT for the really aggressive).