Technology to analyze and transform gender disparities in media Problem
Women are outnumbered by men three to one in the U.S. media and five to one in careers behind the camera. Additionally, women are six times more likely to be depicted in sexually suggestive clothing or partially nude in family films. Over the long term, these negative images can contribute to poor academic performance, body image issues, and less promising life choices.
Soo... Woman showing skin in movie is presupposed as negative. Female skin is skin of evil. Skin of evil "contributes" to bad grades, "body image issues" and will fuck up lives of people who see it.
Basically... women are witches who should be wearing burkas so as not to ruin people's lives, cause bad grades or mental issues with "body image". It's the only way to be sure.
No. Example: a scene where a woman is dressing not done in a sexually suggestive manner isn't a problem. I wouldn't think a scene where a woman breastfeeds a baby with boobs and nipple(s) showing to be a problem either but the US puritans do. I don't think full nudity for either men or women is a problem and not even explicit sex scenes (if not done in an obvious pornographic manner).
But almost always sexualizing the female body in combination with the choice of female actors (looks are everything with a few exceptions) is a problem as it does cause body image problems of females - this is well documented. The same isn't true for men as looks are less important in the choice of actors and sexualization of the body including semi-nude and nude scenes are less common.
How about applying reason before going out on a rant? Otherwise you just contribute to the dummheit.
Ebay sellers often get people that complain that what they got was what was described in text and pictures and not what they wanted the thing to be. Or my favorite, people that buy the wrong article from the wrong seller, pays them and then get angry because they fucked up.
UI problem? Sure there are many examples of that, but there are also a lot of idiots that do what they do best - fuck things up and blame others.
This is what happens when you hire all young people that haven't learned the ropes, points missed, mistakes made. And engineers should have to use the products they designed wherever possible.
The first sentence doesn't follow from the parent post - there are plenty of engineers that do stupid things even when experienced. That's part of being human.
Dogfooding is a good idea but can fail to catch even obvious (to consumers) flaws. Engineers and designers often have different approaches to solve problems than other people.
Dogfooding + consumer testing catches more problems.
The customer is always right.
LOL! No they are not. Not for knowing what they want (they don'!), not for telling what's wrong (need people actually interpreting error reports) and ABSOLUTELY not for customer service questions. If a sizable company doesn't have a vocal group of haters they are doing something very wrong - as some people are so unreasonable that thinking they are "always right" will either make the company lose money (can lead to disaster) _or_ increase the price for every customer (can lead to disaster).
One should listen to customers - thinking they are always right is foolish.
I don't know where you got the idea electric motors have improved so dramatically the last 40 years? They haven't, how can one double 90%+ efficiency?
And while ICEs have low efficiency they cover more of the energy delivery cycle than electric motors - energy storage, energy conversion which need to be taken into account if comparing.
Perhaps more interesting is the semi-detailed presentation about AMD's Zen. Other people have already pointed out that a paltry few hundred million transistors doesn't get you very far. What are the billions of transistors used for? The Zen presentation is quite informative. Loads of cache is a fair chunk of it. Überfancy predictive logic is another big chunk of it. The rest is absorbed by 4 completely parallel ALUs, two parallel AGUs, and a completely independent floating point section with two MUL and two ADD logics. And after all that, what you get is parity with Intel's Broadwell. Barely.
Intel Broadwell E. There's a big difference. And barely being in parity with one of the best performing processors in the world (classified by Intel as an "enthusiast" processor) is a good thing.
So for perspective, that took a decade of hard labor by quite well paid engineers, and there was no low-hanging fruit in the form of the register-starved x86 architecture for AMD to pluck this time. The difference between half a billion and two billion transistors is very very substantial.
Yes it is a factor of 4. Given that Zen is/is to be mass produced in a small process the price/chip are probably skewed strongly towards AMD. Performance is likely to be better for Zen for real world code (read: not embarrassingly parallel).
Parallel execution doesn't reduce serial sections - look at Amdahl's law. Having large parallel systems is a well researched area and I can't see anything this system will do to help improve the state of art. Well the state of art of building processors with huge amounts of processors perhaps.
That isn't possible. First the number of possibilities explode fast and second we are already at a power wall. Modern processors already do speculative computation however only in cases where it is likely the result is correct and needed. Just adding speculative execution will make the computer slower partially due to extra data movements (caches etc.) and partially because it will consume more power on a chip already difficult to cool.
Branch predictors are doing most of the work already and doing it well.
That's called eager execution (well, it have many names but that's the most common).
In general it is a dumb idea. It requires more instruction throughput, more execution units, larger caches etc. for a small gain which in the real world is probably negative. Doing more things means more switching, switching means more power consumption (and the added resources will add to the leakage current too -> more power) and this means lower effective clock frequency.
Even the limited form of eager execution where only branches that are considered unpredictable have both their paths executed there isn't much gain and the overheads most likely not worth it.
Just as there is the super-linear scaling effect (very uncommon) there's also the effect that a multiprocessor system, even if not loaded, can produce worse performance than the ideal _even_ when written competently. Systems have to use different algorithms for different kinds of system to get good scaling, if the system isn't loaded with the workload the system is designed for those algorithms are unlikely to be optimal and performance then scales worse than expected. That includes hardware algorithms like data/instruction prefetch, cache coherency, DRAM management etc.
But you talk like someone that have no freaking clue of real world systems. Do you think synchronization and coherence (hardware _and_ software for distributed systems) are cheap operations? Nope. When the overheads of added cores exceed the extra performance they can provide the system will run slower with more cores, it is that simple. Most interesting synchronization algorithms scale as O(n^2) or O(n*log n), do the math.
Didn't you read the memo? Desktop computers are dead, please recycle yours as soon as possible. Then buy the future: Tablet computers! Think of all the excitement of Windows computing only just without mouse or keyboard and other legacy devices - the finger is the new stylus! Just think of the possibilities for developers where squiggling ones finger in a random pattern just may create the perfect code! And it doesn't end there - why use cumbersome legacy programs for creating art when the finger touching cool new apps can do it! And wouldn't it be really nice if one could do some work while calming a screaming baby? With a tablet computer you can - just don't hit the baby too hard, the tablet may break.
Nobody forces anyone in open source software - just fork. Open source software is absolutely not democratic - it is a meritocracy where the people that does the work also are those that make decisions.
It is the individuals in question that have to contact the police. There are nothing strange how this was handled _except_ that the project management delayed the investigation for so long.
WAKE UP! THIS IS HOW THINGS HAPPEN HERE IN THE REAL WORLD!
Bullshit. But you WJS (Warriors against Justice of the Social kind) always try to portrait rape victims as liars. That's the "she dressed wrong", "she shouldn't have walked in that neighborhood", "she secretly wanted it" arguments again.
In the real world a rape accusation is not only thoroughly examined but relatively (compared to other crimes) likely to be thrown out of court. Many never report rapes due to the examination. That's the truth. You and your ilk running around pretending false rape accusations are common are just plain stupid. But don't take my word for it - there's actual research done in the area. But you can't trust the research as it is done by man-hating SJWs right?
Your projection is incredible. The only people inventing meaningless slurs are the ones that throw out shit like "neckbeard" or "pissbaby" or "fuckboy", and lynch mobs are not investigations.
Lucky we aren't talking about a lynch mob then. We are talking about people wanting to distance themselves from a disturbed individual. Nothing more, nothing less. That's how the world works.
And how are your slurs relevant here? Never heard pissbaby nor fuckboy before, did you just make them up? Those that spout SJW (which is anybody that thinks women have any right to anything judging the idiots using the word here and elsewhere) and try to portrait men who doesn't like sexual misconduct or even (gasp!) rape as weak, effeminate or "cucks" that are just fishing for pitty-sex. The reality is that mature, confident men with a normal sex-life (whatever their sexuality) doesn't like sexual misconduct nor rape.
But you and your ilk will never be mature, right?
Some years ago I thought the characterization of many men as not only thinking women as weaker, less worth than men but even secretly hating women was bullshit. Thanks to you and your ilk I now realize that this is true and that many in the technical field hold those views.
Face it, rape accusations have become THE form of character assassination. It's the new "witch". There's no evidence, proving your innocence is impossible, and the mere accusation is a death sentence.
No evidence? Several persons, male and female, have described in detail how this individual acts. That's evidence. It would be evidence in a court of law and it is evidence outside it.
It's obvious you and your ilk defines evidence as "anything I agree with" and not as the rest of the world does. And that factor repeats - you and your ilk doesn't know how the world works but don't like anything that goes against your fucked-up concept world.
How about you fuck off and die? I'm getting tired of clueless shitheads that don't know how the world works and sees conspiracies everywhere. You folk shut up quick in the Hans Reiser case when it became obvious that he did murder his wife (except for a few mentally retarded enough to still see a conspiracy against Linux supported by the Russian government and other shadowy groups).
You could read about this case and realize that there are no conspiracy to shut down the TOR project, just a "conspiracy" to remove a person with severe misconduct against others - something that is now well documented. Any reasonable private company would have fired him for much less evidence. For good reasons!
This isn't a jury. This isn't a court of law - we don't need to consider him innocent until a judge rules him guilty. We aren't the government - we can censor whatever we want. FUCKING LEARN HOW THE WORLD WORKS!
It is SO "systemd". More of the binary is better bullshit.
Hint: computers work in binary.
Users work in alphanumeric strings.
No, users work in internal representation which sound, images/video and tactile senses (among others) convert to.
Computers are fast, users are slow. Letting the computer represent data in a manner that avoids conversions between external data to/from internal data avoids a lot of unnecessary computation.
The shell is the point of interaction between the user and the computer. The computer is fast. Very fast compared to the user. The computer can afford to spend a couple extra cycles to format output for the user and translate input from the user in the space between a user's keystrokes.
Yes but that isn't the problem, is it? I responded to a person that thinks unstructured textual input/output is good for representing things that mostly are touched by computers. That means that instead of an optimized read/write routine using a binary format the computer have to convert from the textual representation into a binary one to work on the data and all updates by the computer have to be converted from the internal binary representation to a textual one. That's the problem, using resources in a pessimal way.
Using a binary format is more efficient. Using a textual format (it isn't a format per se - ensuring a certain format is an additional overhead over that of conversion to/from text) is easier for simple systems - but we don't have simple systems anymore, the code required for structured binary storage with error correction and build-in redundancy etc. is dwarfed by the rest of the kernel responsibilities!
You were moderated offtopic by someone, I can't understand that. Your post isn't offtopic - it is just wrong.
Embrace? No, MS have indirectly embraced bash (via the Ubuntu subsystem) but this isn't about bash. Extend? MS are the ones coding Powershell so yes, sure, they can extend it. How exactly is that a problem? Extinguish? Nope. WHY would MS extinguish something they worked hard to create and integrate into their operating system? --
Unless you think MS plan to lure the poor Linux users to switch to Powershell, extend it so that a Linux system can't run without it and then suddenly making it closed source? If so you have unrealistic expectations on how good Powershell actually is and frankly should get your head checked out. It is MIT licensed BTW so if you don't like the direction development is going -> fork.
It is SO "systemd". More of the binary is better bullshit.
Hint: computers work in binary. Computers are fast, users are slow. Letting the computer represent data in a manner that avoids conversions between external data to/from internal data avoids a lot of unnecessary computation. But then one have to convert between binary and text when communicating with users, right?
It isn't a problem given the extremely slow I/O speed of a human - conversion of a subset of data suitable for a screen takes very little computation power.
In a modern system binary _is_ better. The added complication of translation to/from a human format is more than compensated by removing unnecessary text -> binary parsing for common tasks and the advantages binary data can have in redundancy, error correction and structured storage.
Good for him. And us. Helping people that have been wronged in order to "destroy a website" he don't like (and for good reasons - outing someone can have serious consequences!) is a good use of money instead of hoarding it.
You really have a fucked-up worldview about everything it seems. If not promoting your ideas about transsexualism (which are remarkably uninformed especially from you) it is some other topic where you can't even provide a shred of reasoning.
There are adultery laws. There are no laws against doing normal snooping to see if there is something behind the suspicions (unless in extreme cases). The adult that _don't_ reading their childrens diaries etc. IF there are suspicions of something potentially serious going on isn't sane.
Your sense of proportionality also needs adjustment.
Yes, I believe (as does the writers of law in many countries) that the illegally obtained footage should be valid in a court of law. However the claim that it was an anonymous source should also be validated and any criminal activity connected to that footage would be prosecuted.
But strictly speaking you are referring to the current system _unless_ you are a police officer. Then any evidence gathered under criminal activities are void.
Slashdot Mirror
And the cowards are already popping up posting irrelevant shit like she can't be a victim because of her gender...
Technology to analyze and transform gender disparities in media
Problem
Women are outnumbered by men three to one in the U.S. media and five to one in careers behind the camera. Additionally, women are six times more likely to be depicted in sexually suggestive clothing or partially nude in family films. Over the long term, these negative images can contribute to poor academic performance, body image issues, and less promising life choices.
Soo...
Woman showing skin in movie is presupposed as negative. Female skin is skin of evil.
Skin of evil "contributes" to bad grades, "body image issues" and will fuck up lives of people who see it.
Basically... women are witches who should be wearing burkas so as not to ruin people's lives, cause bad grades or mental issues with "body image".
It's the only way to be sure.
No. Example: a scene where a woman is dressing not done in a sexually suggestive manner isn't a problem. I wouldn't think a scene where a woman breastfeeds a baby with boobs and nipple(s) showing to be a problem either but the US puritans do. I don't think full nudity for either men or women is a problem and not even explicit sex scenes (if not done in an obvious pornographic manner).
But almost always sexualizing the female body in combination with the choice of female actors (looks are everything with a few exceptions) is a problem as it does cause body image problems of females - this is well documented. The same isn't true for men as looks are less important in the choice of actors and sexualization of the body including semi-nude and nude scenes are less common.
How about applying reason before going out on a rant? Otherwise you just contribute to the dummheit.
Now that is a stupid thing to say.
Ebay sellers often get people that complain that what they got was what was described in text and pictures and not what they wanted the thing to be. Or my favorite, people that buy the wrong article from the wrong seller, pays them and then get angry because they fucked up.
UI problem? Sure there are many examples of that, but there are also a lot of idiots that do what they do best - fuck things up and blame others.
This is what happens when you hire all young people that haven't learned the ropes, points missed, mistakes made. And engineers should have to use the products they designed wherever possible.
The first sentence doesn't follow from the parent post - there are plenty of engineers that do stupid things even when experienced. That's part of being human.
Dogfooding is a good idea but can fail to catch even obvious (to consumers) flaws. Engineers and designers often have different approaches to solve problems than other people.
Dogfooding + consumer testing catches more problems.
The customer is always right.
LOL! No they are not. Not for knowing what they want (they don'!), not for telling what's wrong (need people actually interpreting error reports) and ABSOLUTELY not for customer service questions. If a sizable company doesn't have a vocal group of haters they are doing something very wrong - as some people are so unreasonable that thinking they are "always right" will either make the company lose money (can lead to disaster) _or_ increase the price for every customer (can lead to disaster).
One should listen to customers - thinking they are always right is foolish.
I don't know where you got the idea electric motors have improved so dramatically the last 40 years? They haven't, how can one double 90%+ efficiency?
And while ICEs have low efficiency they cover more of the energy delivery cycle than electric motors - energy storage, energy conversion which need to be taken into account if comparing.
Perhaps more interesting is the semi-detailed presentation about AMD's Zen. Other people have already pointed out that a paltry few hundred million transistors doesn't get you very far. What are the billions of transistors used for? The Zen presentation is quite informative. Loads of cache is a fair chunk of it. Überfancy predictive logic is another big chunk of it. The rest is absorbed by 4 completely parallel ALUs, two parallel AGUs, and a completely independent floating point section with two MUL and two ADD logics. And after all that, what you get is parity with Intel's Broadwell. Barely.
Intel Broadwell E. There's a big difference. And barely being in parity with one of the best performing processors in the world (classified by Intel as an "enthusiast" processor) is a good thing.
So for perspective, that took a decade of hard labor by quite well paid engineers, and there was no low-hanging fruit in the form of the register-starved x86 architecture for AMD to pluck this time. The difference between half a billion and two billion transistors is very very substantial.
Yes it is a factor of 4. Given that Zen is/is to be mass produced in a small process the price/chip are probably skewed strongly towards AMD. Performance is likely to be better for Zen for real world code (read: not embarrassingly parallel).
Parallel execution doesn't reduce serial sections - look at Amdahl's law.
Having large parallel systems is a well researched area and I can't see anything this system will do to help improve the state of art. Well the state of art of building processors with huge amounts of processors perhaps.
That isn't possible. First the number of possibilities explode fast and second we are already at a power wall. Modern processors already do speculative computation however only in cases where it is likely the result is correct and needed. Just adding speculative execution will make the computer slower partially due to extra data movements (caches etc.) and partially because it will consume more power on a chip already difficult to cool.
Branch predictors are doing most of the work already and doing it well.
That's called eager execution (well, it have many names but that's the most common).
In general it is a dumb idea. It requires more instruction throughput, more execution units, larger caches etc. for a small gain which in the real world is probably negative. Doing more things means more switching, switching means more power consumption (and the added resources will add to the leakage current too -> more power) and this means lower effective clock frequency.
Even the limited form of eager execution where only branches that are considered unpredictable have both their paths executed there isn't much gain and the overheads most likely not worth it.
Just as there is the super-linear scaling effect (very uncommon) there's also the effect that a multiprocessor system, even if not loaded, can produce worse performance than the ideal _even_ when written competently. Systems have to use different algorithms for different kinds of system to get good scaling, if the system isn't loaded with the workload the system is designed for those algorithms are unlikely to be optimal and performance then scales worse than expected. That includes hardware algorithms like data/instruction prefetch, cache coherency, DRAM management etc.
But you talk like someone that have no freaking clue of real world systems. Do you think synchronization and coherence (hardware _and_ software for distributed systems) are cheap operations? Nope. When the overheads of added cores exceed the extra performance they can provide the system will run slower with more cores, it is that simple. Most interesting synchronization algorithms scale as O(n^2) or O(n*log n), do the math.
He isn't stuck anywhere - he can walk out anytime.
Didn't you read the memo? Desktop computers are dead, please recycle yours as soon as possible. Then buy the future: Tablet computers! Think of all the excitement of Windows computing only just without mouse or keyboard and other legacy devices - the finger is the new stylus! Just think of the possibilities for developers where squiggling ones finger in a random pattern just may create the perfect code! And it doesn't end there - why use cumbersome legacy programs for creating art when the finger touching cool new apps can do it! And wouldn't it be really nice if one could do some work while calming a screaming baby? With a tablet computer you can - just don't hit the baby too hard, the tablet may break.
Ehum...
Nobody forces anyone in open source software - just fork. Open source software is absolutely not democratic - it is a meritocracy where the people that does the work also are those that make decisions.
It is the individuals in question that have to contact the police. There are nothing strange how this was handled _except_ that the project management delayed the investigation for so long.
WAKE UP! THIS IS HOW THINGS HAPPEN HERE IN THE REAL WORLD!
Bullshit. But you WJS (Warriors against Justice of the Social kind) always try to portrait rape victims as liars. That's the "she dressed wrong", "she shouldn't have walked in that neighborhood", "she secretly wanted it" arguments again.
In the real world a rape accusation is not only thoroughly examined but relatively (compared to other crimes) likely to be thrown out of court. Many never report rapes due to the examination. That's the truth. You and your ilk running around pretending false rape accusations are common are just plain stupid. But don't take my word for it - there's actual research done in the area. But you can't trust the research as it is done by man-hating SJWs right?
Your projection is incredible. The only people inventing meaningless slurs are the ones that throw out shit like "neckbeard" or "pissbaby" or "fuckboy", and lynch mobs are not investigations.
Lucky we aren't talking about a lynch mob then. We are talking about people wanting to distance themselves from a disturbed individual. Nothing more, nothing less. That's how the world works.
And how are your slurs relevant here? Never heard pissbaby nor fuckboy before, did you just make them up? Those that spout SJW (which is anybody that thinks women have any right to anything judging the idiots using the word here and elsewhere) and try to portrait men who doesn't like sexual misconduct or even (gasp!) rape as weak, effeminate or "cucks" that are just fishing for pitty-sex. The reality is that mature, confident men with a normal sex-life (whatever their sexuality) doesn't like sexual misconduct nor rape.
But you and your ilk will never be mature, right?
Some years ago I thought the characterization of many men as not only thinking women as weaker, less worth than men but even secretly hating women was bullshit. Thanks to you and your ilk I now realize that this is true and that many in the technical field hold those views.
Face it, rape accusations have become THE form of character assassination. It's the new "witch". There's no evidence, proving your innocence is impossible, and the mere accusation is a death sentence.
No evidence? Several persons, male and female, have described in detail how this individual acts. That's evidence. It would be evidence in a court of law and it is evidence outside it.
It's obvious you and your ilk defines evidence as "anything I agree with" and not as the rest of the world does. And that factor repeats - you and your ilk doesn't know how the world works but don't like anything that goes against your fucked-up concept world.
How about you fuck off and die? I'm getting tired of clueless shitheads that don't know how the world works and sees conspiracies everywhere. You folk shut up quick in the Hans Reiser case when it became obvious that he did murder his wife (except for a few mentally retarded enough to still see a conspiracy against Linux supported by the Russian government and other shadowy groups).
You could read about this case and realize that there are no conspiracy to shut down the TOR project, just a "conspiracy" to remove a person with severe misconduct against others - something that is now well documented. Any reasonable private company would have fired him for much less evidence. For good reasons!
This isn't a jury. This isn't a court of law - we don't need to consider him innocent until a judge rules him guilty. We aren't the government - we can censor whatever we want. FUCKING LEARN HOW THE WORLD WORKS!
It is SO "systemd". More of the binary is better bullshit.
Hint: computers work in binary.
Users work in alphanumeric strings.
No, users work in internal representation which sound, images/video and tactile senses (among others) convert to.
Computers are fast, users are slow. Letting the computer represent data in a manner that avoids conversions between external data to/from internal data avoids a lot of unnecessary computation.
The shell is the point of interaction between the user and the computer. The computer is fast. Very fast compared to the user. The computer can afford to spend a couple extra cycles to format output for the user and translate input from the user in the space between a user's keystrokes.
Yes but that isn't the problem, is it? I responded to a person that thinks unstructured textual input/output is good for representing things that mostly are touched by computers. That means that instead of an optimized read/write routine using a binary format the computer have to convert from the textual representation into a binary one to work on the data and all updates by the computer have to be converted from the internal binary representation to a textual one. That's the problem, using resources in a pessimal way.
Using a binary format is more efficient. Using a textual format (it isn't a format per se - ensuring a certain format is an additional overhead over that of conversion to/from text) is easier for simple systems - but we don't have simple systems anymore, the code required for structured binary storage with error correction and build-in redundancy etc. is dwarfed by the rest of the kernel responsibilities!
You were moderated offtopic by someone, I can't understand that. Your post isn't offtopic - it is just wrong.
Embrace? No, MS have indirectly embraced bash (via the Ubuntu subsystem) but this isn't about bash.
Extend? MS are the ones coding Powershell so yes, sure, they can extend it. How exactly is that a problem?
Extinguish? Nope. WHY would MS extinguish something they worked hard to create and integrate into their operating system?
--
Unless you think MS plan to lure the poor Linux users to switch to Powershell, extend it so that a Linux system can't run without it and then suddenly making it closed source? If so you have unrealistic expectations on how good Powershell actually is and frankly should get your head checked out. It is MIT licensed BTW so if you don't like the direction development is going -> fork.
It is SO "systemd". More of the binary is better bullshit.
Hint: computers work in binary. Computers are fast, users are slow. Letting the computer represent data in a manner that avoids conversions between external data to/from internal data avoids a lot of unnecessary computation. But then one have to convert between binary and text when communicating with users, right?
It isn't a problem given the extremely slow I/O speed of a human - conversion of a subset of data suitable for a screen takes very little computation power.
In a modern system binary _is_ better. The added complication of translation to/from a human format is more than compensated by removing unnecessary text -> binary parsing for common tasks and the advantages binary data can have in redundancy, error correction and structured storage.
Good for him. And us. Helping people that have been wronged in order to "destroy a website" he don't like (and for good reasons - outing someone can have serious consequences!) is a good use of money instead of hoarding it.
You really have a fucked-up worldview about everything it seems. If not promoting your ideas about transsexualism (which are remarkably uninformed especially from you) it is some other topic where you can't even provide a shred of reasoning.
There are adultery laws. There are no laws against doing normal snooping to see if there is something behind the suspicions (unless in extreme cases). The adult that _don't_ reading their childrens diaries etc. IF there are suspicions of something potentially serious going on isn't sane.
Your sense of proportionality also needs adjustment.
Don't know if you understood my previous post...
Yes, I believe (as does the writers of law in many countries) that the illegally obtained footage should be valid in a court of law. However the claim that it was an anonymous source should also be validated and any criminal activity connected to that footage would be prosecuted.
Are you ready to take the consequences?
But strictly speaking you are referring to the current system _unless_ you are a police officer. Then any evidence gathered under criminal activities are void.