Geez, I thought "edgy" would imply some pr0n... this is just a brown ubuntu login screen. What's so fscking "edgy" about that?
Don't you remember when Ubuntu hit the big times (I think it was version 4.10) and they put out that desktop wallpaper of the group of interacial people where they were all topless (even though the bottom edge of the screen covered everything up)? There was a bunch of controversy over that making the OS "family-unfriendly".
If EULA's aren't enforcable, then why would the GPL be the same?
"In general, a user is not obligated to read, let alone consent to any literature or envelope packaging that may be contained inside a product; otherwise such transactions would unduly burden users who have no notice of the terms and conditions of their possession of the object purchased, or the blind, or those unfamiliar with the language in which such terms are provided, etc."
One thing I can think of off the top of my head is the basis of this case, you don't pay for OSS software.
The reason an EULA is not enforcable is as soon as you open the software it's yours. You can't read the license, decide not to agree to it, and then take the product back to the store and get your money back. Since the open-source software is free, you have nothing to lose. If you don't like it, uninstall it. The end.
And as other people have pointed out, the fact the software is under the GPL does not make copyright non-existant. Since the software was never stated to be public domain, they have no right to copy it and sell it as their own. The GPL is like a pre-signed "premission form" in this usage. Creating an exception to normal copyright, not a replacement for it.
That would make it something that kills iPod wannabe's, like Creative or Rio or Sandisk players. I wonder whether that is what the submitter meant, or did he mean "wannabe iPod" or "wannabe iPod-killer"?
I think "iPod-killer wannabe" flows better, but I don't want the phrase used at all until the Zune actually starts to make a noteable marketshare dent.
Has anyone noticed the comments system is broken on this article. The only visible replies are the ones replying to the article itself. I've have five replies to my first comment on here and none of them are showing up. If I bring up up one (via the email link) and click the parent link, I'm taken to an empty comment.
He recommends full disclosure of all existing problems, a process for disclosure of future problems, hiring of some real professionals as CTO and as an advisory group, and public testing.
My recommendations:
Make the code simple and open-source.
No last minute "patches" being applied by Diebold personnel on election day with no explanation why or review of the code beforehand. The machines should be frozen for most purposes when they're shipped and completely at least 72 hrs before election day.
Do a "dry run" of the election equipment to make sure everything is working properly before election day! I keep hearing about what sound like fairly simple problems cropping up at the polls that make you wonder if they do any testing at all on these systems before releasing them.
"Surely if Diebold can make a secure ATM there is no reason why it cannot make secure and reliable e-voting apparatus in which the public has confidence.""
A system designed for usability (which Apple machines claim to be) should consider this and not require third party hacks to be usable by a left-hander.
You can also turn on Sticky Keys (which has been part of the Mac OS since at least System 7.5), so you wouldn't have to hold control at exactly the same time you were clicking, but I thought that seemed a little overdoing it for left-handedness.
The worst thing is that there is a completely superfluous newline key right by the left arrow key (on the right hand side of the keyboard) which is very easy to accidentally hit, which could easily have been a second control key completely eliminating this problem.
That would be the one in this picture you're talking about? That is an Enter key, which actually is not the same as the Return key, even thought PCs give both the same name. It's the Enter key one would have with the numeric keypad on a normal desktop keyboard. The reason it is included is some software actually uses the keys for different functions, so without an Enter key some software would be less usable (don't ask me to name any, but I know they exist).
You don't have to use the spell checker as you describe. You can simply go to Edit->Spelling->Spelling and run the spell checker as an all-at-once command like an old word processor (might need to select you text block first). So it not like the spell checker is completely worthless if you can't control-click easily. Also, given that all shipping laptops have the two finger control-click function now, you're really beating a dead horse here.
If you have a laptop that didn't include the new track pad functionality, get the free utility to add similar functionality, or get the free remapper and make the "Enter" another "Control" key. You excuse the Micorsoft mouse on the fact it can be easily replaced. Well, you can similarly buy a two button mouse for your laptop, too.
You're talking to someone who doesn't know how to touch type but can hunt-n-peck 35wpm. I could lose a couple fingers and still type this well. To bill this "The worst thing I have seen for left-handers" is just Apple-hating. Fix your issue and move on. Apple has people with real disabilities to think about.
Not so with a built-in trackpad. As to it not being a requirement to function in the OS, perhaps you can tell me how to get a list of suggestions for an incorrect spelling without using it. Of course, this issue doesn't exist in the newer machines, which allow you to control-click by holding two fingers on the trackpad...
Have you tried this? There is also this utility, which appears to be shareware.
And I'm sure there are utilities out there you can use to remap the control key to a more convienent key on the keyboard. Here's one.
Not to be mean here, but I seemed to have found quite a bit in five minutes of Google searching, two of them open-source solutions no less. What have you been doing?
The worst thing I have seen for left-handers is the design of Apple laptops. How do you bring up a context menu? You control-click. Where is the only control key? On the left side of the keyboard.
Do you have anything else? The worst thing you have seen for left handers is the design of Apple laptops and that assertation is based soley on the placement on a sigle key? A key that, unlike in Windows, isn't really a requirement to function in the OS?
What about Microsoft mice? Many are industrial-designed only to mold to a right hand comfortably. Or motorcycles having the throttle on the right side?
Laws against swearing are nothing new, and neither are fines for insulting police officers. In this case, the cops simply didn't believe him when he said he was gesturing to the camera and not to them.
The gawker would feel social pressure from myself and others not to behave intrusively, and if they carried on following me without a good reason I might eventually call the police.
I wonder if the government ever feels pressure not to act intrusively.:-)
Yeah, calling the police is a nice plan until you try it and the person ducks off in the ten minutes or so before anyone comes by.
The porn industry proves no such thing - do you think porn stars really behave that way 24 hours a day? They're acting for the camera.
I was thinking more of amateur porn actually. My point is people can take even the most intimate area of our lives and have no inhibitions about doing it publicly by sheer will (or in the case of Girls Gone Wild - alcohol).
So there's no point trying to attain even a small amount of liberty, equality or autonomy? You're almost cynical enough to pass for British.
Yup, and the guy in the big house over here thinks he's a king, too. All we need to do is finish raising gas ahem- petrol prices a few more dollars, install more roundabouts, and begin discussing the colour of the Terror Threat Level more.:-)
That's your assumption, but in most cases you can't see what the camera's looking at. How would you feel about a camera operator watching your mother or sister for ten minutes because he found her attractive?
And the difference would be what exactly? Would you go up to the gawker and punch them? I didn't think so. You can be annoyed by them just as well whether they are 15 ft or 1500 miles away.
On a crowded street, each camera captures more than 14 people at a time. Anyway, would you be happy to be followed by a masked man for one day every two weeks? Do you think you'd behave differently on that day?
I don't know, I've never had that happen to me. But lets be clear that my change in behavior would be my own doing. People's reactions dictate it. It's not compulsory to act different just because someone is watching you. The porn industry proves that. The Government doesn't make you paranoid, YOU make yourself paranoid.
But if they choose to stare at me I can stare back. If they choose to follow me, everyone can see them doing it. On the other hand if a camera tracks me down the street, nobody's any the wiser.
I can see cameras zoom and pan when they operate, can't you? You can't tell when you're far away from the camera, but then, you can't tell if a person is looking at you if they are more than 10 feet or so away. They could be looking past you, watch you sidelong, ect.
The symmetry of the relationship is broken.
Your vocabulary word for today is Sousveillance. Try it, and you can both look rediculous.
You're missing the point: it's not about wanting to commit crimes without being caught, it's about wanting to have a symmetric power relationship with other members of society.
LOL, if you think you're ever going to have a symmetrical power relationship with the Power Elite, I have a bridge up East I'd like to sell you.
The difference is, it's everywhere and in the hands of the current government. A challenger to that government could find themselves in a very awkward position if said government used those surveillance records against them, regardless of context.
Just like the photographs damning the current government can be posted online, photocopied, reprinted, emailed, or faxed making them equally umbiqitous. There is no inherent advantage to the government in this situation except that they are already in power and people will be more inclined to believe them depending on current public opinion. With the way photos and even video can be doctored now I wonder sometimes how anyone can consider "photographic evidence" to be anything close.
It's different from having one person photographed by a random reporter or citizen on the street, versus having cameras virtually everywhere you go automatically recording your actions.
Assuming said cameras really are that numerous and are actually focusing on you the whole time. Which is highly unlikely as I have repeatedly pointed out due to the sheer number difference between citizens vs. cameras, and compound that by cameras vs. operators watching them.
Because depending on your local laws, it is either illegal or VERY bad form to use a photograph of someone without their permission.
I'm sorry, that is completely WRONG (unless you are citing UK law). There are generally no laws against taking pictures of someone in public. In fact, there are no laws against taking pictures of private property as long as you are standing on public property and the shot is in plain view.
if someone takes your picture you can always go to the person and ask that they not use it. If they use it anyway, at the bare minimum you can sue them.
That's only if they are using it for commercial purposes.
RFID. If things keep going the way they are going, soon everything you buy will have an RFID tag in it.
Which get disabled once you buy the item, are only effective in a limited range, and can be disabled by individuals with the correct equipment (which is getting smaller, too).
CCTV cameras are useless for IDing someone. What if the murderer wears a baseball cap, and his face is in shadow? Anyone can wear a baseball cap...
Didn't you just point out that the government is identifying my strange behavior of buying lingerie using CCTV? How do they know it was me they saw going into that stores?
Cuts both ways, doesn't it?
2) I could have walked out the BACK DOOR. Or jumped out a window, for that matter.
True, true. That would be a way around it. But you still have to get from your back door to the murder site without being seen by any of the cameras along the way.
But they don't RECORD. No one gives a flying fuck if they are WATCHED in public- as they say, there is no expectation of privacy in public. But cameras are just SOOOOOO easy to record from. What happens to the recordings? How long are they kept? Who has access to them (legit or not)?
So you don't remember what you saw last time you were at the grocery store? You coudn't write a description of the events you witnessed on paper, creating a record anyone could refrence if they wish?
If you're running for office 20 years down the line or applying for a job, would you want it to come out that you were speeding at 100mph/kissing a person of the wrong race or gender/talking to someone who ended up being arrested for terrorist 5 years later/etc?
How is this any different than people taking pictures on the street on their own? A photographer for a newspaper for example? Should we have laws all microfilm records of newspapers be distroyed after a set amount of time? After all, we can't have it revealed that our leaders may have supported a view that while abhorred now, was quite popular at the time the photo was taken...
In the same fashion, I'm totally free to take photos of strangers in a public space, even if they don't want me to, and do whatever I feel like doing with them, as long as the usage is permitted by law.
When we're out in public, we do still have a *large* amount of privacy through being anonymous, at least in medium size cities and up. You can walk into a lingerie shop and ask the salesgirl for kinky underwear saying "It's a present for my wife" without everyone looking at you because they know you're not married. It's a sort of "virtual privacy", and it holds with respect to the government too. Your life is still yours and not in the public eye.
Unless the government is following you right out of your house, how does the camera tell them who you are? Oh, that's right, facial recognition technology. Giving a computer the same power recognize faces as ordinary human beings. Stores are private property, do you forsee many businesses allowing the government to install cameras inside their premesis? I don't. It would make labor and safety abuses a lot easier to catch. So how is the government to know you bought women's lingerie and not silk bikini briefs for yourself without cooperation from the store?
That "virtual privacy" changes dramatically with regard to those in authority when there are cameras everywhere, and "odd behaviour" gets noted down on your file. You may think that that doesn't matter, since they're not going to pull you in for buying kinky underwear, but all these things add up. If they're looking for a serial killer of hookers who's trademark is a fondness for lingerie and who *might* live in your area, then all of a sudden you're on the suspects list.
In a medium to large size city the number of people who would be interested in lingerie would be too large to make this a practical profile method. It's like when America's Most Wanted puts up a bulliten for a "white male age 25-30 with blonde hair and brown eyes", everyone ignores it because it describes at least three of their friends.
Also, you forgot that if the surveillance were that pervasive, it could actually work to you advantage. As you said, several things would "add up" about your behavior. So, lingerie fetish - check, was at scene of first murder on night in question? Nope, our CCTV cameras did not show you in the area of the park on the evening of June 21st, guess you're not him. Or, what about this other murder on Downy St? You live alone so your alibi you were at home at that time really doesn't hold well, but wait, our CCTV camera from your street recorded you going into your house at 8pm and you didn't emerge until ten the next morning.
you'll wake up one day and discover just how nasty a place it can be when someone has power over you. And one of the few protections we have against that is our privacy.
It's only power against us if there is a reason to do something and they take action. This would require laws. A threat of action through constant surveillance only works on people paranoid about the government to begin with and sure they are doing something wrong, whether it's true or not. Like FDR said: "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself".
Every time one of these stories comes up I'm reminded of the privacy outcry over everyone having cameras in their cell phones. Oh noes! If I'm walking down the street someone could take my picture! But why would they want to?
Also, those promised technologies of scrambling built into digital cameras so your face gets blurred in photographs if you're wearing a badge that triggers the function in that camera. If privacy/security paranoia like this takes hold in mass what do you get? Everyone wearing face scramble badges. But why stop there? People photographing buildings already get the third degree from security guards. Better put out a scramble signal from the roof so anyone trying to photograph the building from outside is also stopped! Now imagine how the arts would suffer. If you tried to take a picture of the New York skyline or film a television show, you would have to get every business to shut off their "shield" or
Are you replying to me or the parent? I have no issues with going out in public, but then I don't have unrealistic expectations of privacy when I'm out, either.
So you wouldn't mind if a masked man followed you everywhere, every day, from the moment you left your house to the moment you returned, and made regular and detailed reports about your activities to unspecified people? Because personally I'd feel extremely intimidated and invaded by that situation. Unfortunately it's easy to forget that you're being treated that way by CCTV, because the cameras are relatively unobtrusive.
People are only being treated that way by CCTV if they're doing something suspicious. Like the article said, 1 camera for every 14 people. So the camera isn't focusing on each person and following them around everywhere making detailed reports, kinda nullifying your masked man comparison. To actually watch what every person was doing in a manner as detailed as you describe would require a staff of "watchers" and cameras equal to the population you are trying to watch.
The cameras focus on areas of the street and catch people walking in and out of their field of view. Prehaps if it appears something interesting is happening, the camera operator may pan or zoom to get a better view, and if the person is doing something really interesting, they'll follow them to the end of the camera's available range and pick up with another camera, ect.
Does that sound familiar? Yeah, it's exactly what other pedestrians do when you're walking around in public right now. They see you as you pass by, may turn to look if you're doing something interesting, and if they really want to, follow you for a bit if they wish.
Contrary to popular belief, people are not nearly as exciting as they believe themselves to be. So unless some new laws have been passed making it illegal to do lots of things that are incredibly normal, what has really changed here? If you're doing something you wouldn't want a camera to see, why would you do it in public where a cop walking along could see you?
-
And to deflect these responses now: No, this isn't the same as "if you have nothing to hide there shouldn't be any issue with us searching" arguements. Because a search of a vehicle, residence, or person is a search conducted on an individual body or private property. Walking around on the street is being out in public, which is shared space with no guarantees to privacy. A normal camera can see nothing more than the naked eye can when looking at you, and there's nothing illegal about that.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you remember when Ubuntu hit the big times (I think it was version 4.10) and they put out that desktop wallpaper of the group of interacial people where they were all topless (even though the bottom edge of the screen covered everything up)? There was a bunch of controversy over that making the OS "family-unfriendly".
I liked the prototype version better.
One thing I can think of off the top of my head is the basis of this case, you don't pay for OSS software.
The reason an EULA is not enforcable is as soon as you open the software it's yours. You can't read the license, decide not to agree to it, and then take the product back to the store and get your money back. Since the open-source software is free, you have nothing to lose. If you don't like it, uninstall it. The end.
And as other people have pointed out, the fact the software is under the GPL does not make copyright non-existant. Since the software was never stated to be public domain, they have no right to copy it and sell it as their own. The GPL is like a pre-signed "premission form" in this usage. Creating an exception to normal copyright, not a replacement for it.
I think "iPod-killer wannabe" flows better, but I don't want the phrase used at all until the Zune actually starts to make a noteable marketshare dent.
Nothing to see here, please move along.
Drat! Foiled again!
Or does this mean Slashdot is on the list?
I wonder if they gave him an iPod as a retirement gift.
Has anyone noticed the comments system is broken on this article. The only visible replies are the ones replying to the article itself. I've have five replies to my first comment on here and none of them are showing up. If I bring up up one (via the email link) and click the parent link, I'm taken to an empty comment.
No, no! It's up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, and Start
When did they make a secure ATM?
You can also turn on Sticky Keys (which has been part of the Mac OS since at least System 7.5), so you wouldn't have to hold control at exactly the same time you were clicking, but I thought that seemed a little overdoing it for left-handedness.
That would be the one in this picture you're talking about? That is an Enter key, which actually is not the same as the Return key, even thought PCs give both the same name. It's the Enter key one would have with the numeric keypad on a normal desktop keyboard. The reason it is included is some software actually uses the keys for different functions, so without an Enter key some software would be less usable (don't ask me to name any, but I know they exist).
You don't have to use the spell checker as you describe. You can simply go to Edit->Spelling->Spelling and run the spell checker as an all-at-once command like an old word processor (might need to select you text block first). So it not like the spell checker is completely worthless if you can't control-click easily. Also, given that all shipping laptops have the two finger control-click function now, you're really beating a dead horse here.
If you have a laptop that didn't include the new track pad functionality, get the free utility to add similar functionality, or get the free remapper and make the "Enter" another "Control" key. You excuse the Micorsoft mouse on the fact it can be easily replaced. Well, you can similarly buy a two button mouse for your laptop, too.
You're talking to someone who doesn't know how to touch type but can hunt-n-peck 35wpm. I could lose a couple fingers and still type this well. To bill this "The worst thing I have seen for left-handers" is just Apple-hating. Fix your issue and move on. Apple has people with real disabilities to think about.
(Pointing at MS Plays-for-Sure)
"Ha ha - you've been usurped! That's right, I said usurped."
Have you tried this? There is also this utility, which appears to be shareware.
Also, It might be possible to pull up the list with a function key, as F5 will pull the autocomplete.
And I'm sure there are utilities out there you can use to remap the control key to a more convienent key on the keyboard. Here's one.
Not to be mean here, but I seemed to have found quite a bit in five minutes of Google searching, two of them open-source solutions no less. What have you been doing?
Do you have anything else? The worst thing you have seen for left handers is the design of Apple laptops and that assertation is based soley on the placement on a sigle key? A key that, unlike in Windows, isn't really a requirement to function in the OS?
What about Microsoft mice? Many are industrial-designed only to mold to a right hand comfortably. Or motorcycles having the throttle on the right side?
Laws against swearing are nothing new, and neither are fines for insulting police officers. In this case, the cops simply didn't believe him when he said he was gesturing to the camera and not to them.
I wonder if the government ever feels pressure not to act intrusively.
Yeah, calling the police is a nice plan until you try it and the person ducks off in the ten minutes or so before anyone comes by.
I was thinking more of amateur porn actually. My point is people can take even the most intimate area of our lives and have no inhibitions about doing it publicly by sheer will (or in the case of Girls Gone Wild - alcohol).
Yup, and the guy in the big house over here thinks he's a king, too. All we need to do is finish raising gas ahem- petrol prices a few more dollars, install more roundabouts, and begin discussing the colour of the Terror Threat Level more.
And the difference would be what exactly? Would you go up to the gawker and punch them? I didn't think so. You can be annoyed by them just as well whether they are 15 ft or 1500 miles away.
I don't know, I've never had that happen to me. But lets be clear that my change in behavior would be my own doing. People's reactions dictate it. It's not compulsory to act different just because someone is watching you. The porn industry proves that. The Government doesn't make you paranoid, YOU make yourself paranoid.
I can see cameras zoom and pan when they operate, can't you? You can't tell when you're far away from the camera, but then, you can't tell if a person is looking at you if they are more than 10 feet or so away. They could be looking past you, watch you sidelong, ect.
Your vocabulary word for today is Sousveillance. Try it, and you can both look rediculous.
LOL, if you think you're ever going to have a symmetrical power relationship with the Power Elite, I have a bridge up East I'd like to sell you.
Just like the photographs damning the current government can be posted online, photocopied, reprinted, emailed, or faxed making them equally umbiqitous. There is no inherent advantage to the government in this situation except that they are already in power and people will be more inclined to believe them depending on current public opinion. With the way photos and even video can be doctored now I wonder sometimes how anyone can consider "photographic evidence" to be anything close.
Assuming said cameras really are that numerous and are actually focusing on you the whole time. Which is highly unlikely as I have repeatedly pointed out due to the sheer number difference between citizens vs. cameras, and compound that by cameras vs. operators watching them.
I'm sorry, that is completely WRONG (unless you are citing UK law). There are generally no laws against taking pictures of someone in public. In fact, there are no laws against taking pictures of private property as long as you are standing on public property and the shot is in plain view.
Please review the Photographer's Right (PDF).
That's only if they are using it for commercial purposes.
Which get disabled once you buy the item, are only effective in a limited range, and can be disabled by individuals with the correct equipment (which is getting smaller, too).
Didn't you just point out that the government is identifying my strange behavior of buying lingerie using CCTV? How do they know it was me they saw going into that stores?
Cuts both ways, doesn't it?
True, true. That would be a way around it. But you still have to get from your back door to the murder site without being seen by any of the cameras along the way.
So you don't remember what you saw last time you were at the grocery store? You coudn't write a description of the events you witnessed on paper, creating a record anyone could refrence if they wish?
How is this any different than people taking pictures on the street on their own? A photographer for a newspaper for example? Should we have laws all microfilm records of newspapers be distroyed after a set amount of time? After all, we can't have it revealed that our leaders may have supported a view that while abhorred now, was quite popular at the time the photo was taken...
I've got a funny story about just that.
Unless the government is following you right out of your house, how does the camera tell them who you are? Oh, that's right, facial recognition technology. Giving a computer the same power recognize faces as ordinary human beings. Stores are private property, do you forsee many businesses allowing the government to install cameras inside their premesis? I don't. It would make labor and safety abuses a lot easier to catch. So how is the government to know you bought women's lingerie and not silk bikini briefs for yourself without cooperation from the store?
In a medium to large size city the number of people who would be interested in lingerie would be too large to make this a practical profile method. It's like when America's Most Wanted puts up a bulliten for a "white male age 25-30 with blonde hair and brown eyes", everyone ignores it because it describes at least three of their friends.
Also, you forgot that if the surveillance were that pervasive, it could actually work to you advantage. As you said, several things would "add up" about your behavior. So, lingerie fetish - check, was at scene of first murder on night in question? Nope, our CCTV cameras did not show you in the area of the park on the evening of June 21st, guess you're not him. Or, what about this other murder on Downy St? You live alone so your alibi you were at home at that time really doesn't hold well, but wait, our CCTV camera from your street recorded you going into your house at 8pm and you didn't emerge until ten the next morning.
It's only power against us if there is a reason to do something and they take action. This would require laws. A threat of action through constant surveillance only works on people paranoid about the government to begin with and sure they are doing something wrong, whether it's true or not. Like FDR said: "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself".
Every time one of these stories comes up I'm reminded of the privacy outcry over everyone having cameras in their cell phones. Oh noes! If I'm walking down the street someone could take my picture! But why would they want to?
Also, those promised technologies of scrambling built into digital cameras so your face gets blurred in photographs if you're wearing a badge that triggers the function in that camera. If privacy/security paranoia like this takes hold in mass what do you get? Everyone wearing face scramble badges. But why stop there? People photographing buildings already get the third degree from security guards. Better put out a scramble signal from the roof so anyone trying to photograph the building from outside is also stopped! Now imagine how the arts would suffer. If you tried to take a picture of the New York skyline or film a television show, you would have to get every business to shut off their "shield" or
Are you replying to me or the parent? I have no issues with going out in public, but then I don't have unrealistic expectations of privacy when I'm out, either.
People are only being treated that way by CCTV if they're doing something suspicious. Like the article said, 1 camera for every 14 people. So the camera isn't focusing on each person and following them around everywhere making detailed reports, kinda nullifying your masked man comparison. To actually watch what every person was doing in a manner as detailed as you describe would require a staff of "watchers" and cameras equal to the population you are trying to watch.
The cameras focus on areas of the street and catch people walking in and out of their field of view. Prehaps if it appears something interesting is happening, the camera operator may pan or zoom to get a better view, and if the person is doing something really interesting, they'll follow them to the end of the camera's available range and pick up with another camera, ect.
Does that sound familiar? Yeah, it's exactly what other pedestrians do when you're walking around in public right now. They see you as you pass by, may turn to look if you're doing something interesting, and if they really want to, follow you for a bit if they wish.
Contrary to popular belief, people are not nearly as exciting as they believe themselves to be. So unless some new laws have been passed making it illegal to do lots of things that are incredibly normal, what has really changed here? If you're doing something you wouldn't want a camera to see, why would you do it in public where a cop walking along could see you?
-
And to deflect these responses now: No, this isn't the same as "if you have nothing to hide there shouldn't be any issue with us searching" arguements. Because a search of a vehicle, residence, or person is a search conducted on an individual body or private property. Walking around on the street is being out in public, which is shared space with no guarantees to privacy. A normal camera can see nothing more than the naked eye can when looking at you, and there's nothing illegal about that.