PierceTheBubble

Yes, totally. In my opinion parents bare full responsibility over their under-age child (not the state, nor platforms: unless catered specifically towards children), and should be legally held accountable when neglecting their child, whether that be physically or digitally.

It's insane to me, there's parents allowing their child unrestricted access to the internet: not restricting them from getting into contact with complete strangers; like this couldn't escalate to physical contact. There's countless children's platforms, which generally shouldn't allow interaction between users; and where it is necessary, perhaps require parents to give explicit permission.

It honestly makes more sense to me, to have adults prove they're under-age: to be able to access a children's platform; than children (and as a result: everyone, including adults) having to prove they're of-age: to be able to access an adult platform. But it seems this concept is completely foreign to politicians.

How about not allowing systemic use, of objects equipped with public-facing image sensors (including stationary cameras)? It is beyond worrisome, regulations advocated for, align with those introduced in the US, with regards to: drones, 3D printing, and open-source firmware running them. I'm so sick and tired of the crime and terrorism motive, and the shameless hypocrisy involved: if there's excessive crime and terrorism, it's probably the result of systemic failure (the wealth gap and foreign policy). All technology like this does, is suppress the underlying problems, and perpetuate a clearly dysfunctional system, that disproportionately benefits a privileged minority (including those shoveling the technology).

I don't need accustomization to, or instruction on such systems; and I'm especially uninterested, in being fear mongered into acceptance. Instead, I'd rather live with the hypothetical, of being struck by a kamikaze drone, than the certainty of government sensors surveilling me (supposedly as a byproduct, for protection against the hypothetical), through: (swarms of) drones (patrolling the skies), high-altitude pseudo-satellites (HAPS), passive acoustic masts (mapping every micro-rotor within a kilometer), microwave point-defense pods (concealed in sidewalk bollards and street lights), Internet of Things (IoT) devices anywhere (from underground areas to cities, rural areas and even oceans), or legally wiretapped devices (possibly "social" robots).

The following dystopian lines say it all: "satellites, artificial intelligence, open-source intelligence, and real-time surveillance have transformed modern conflict zones into what is now being called the transparent battlefield, and maybe this expression is equally relevant for society in general, the transparent society"; emphasized later by: "the technology will also bring a more transparent operating environment where few things stay hidden". But "the public must trust law enforcement to use these technologies effectively and accountably"...

(1) defund the police, (2) act surprised when crime rises, (3) respond with surveillance tech: the good ol' problem-reaction-solution paradigm

I ran it 5 times and all IDs (dZP06FnaUjtPOYh0s6Xy, Gp4E34k89Kox5ZS0HsRr, Al0HFjDTTEOGlUasncXa, ZCfnXPFd08a2c0ZtplPT, 0UPk10WDNg6BEAElMReI) are different. Most mentioning me being a first time visitor, unlike the second uniquely being 6th time visitor. So I haven't been able to reproduce it.

These "phony companies" could in turn be operated by state actors: as there have been physical product launches in the past, which turned out to be honey pots. Perhaps state actors, can no longer convince privacy enthusiasts (unfortunately including criminals), to fall for their honey pots, and shift efforts to tarnishing reputation instead.

Thankfully the US government would never circumvent supposed protections otherwise. I mean, they most certainly wouldn't use taxpayer money, to obtain information about said taxpayers. You should just trust your government, to protect you against government surveillance... what conflict of interest?

This nice visualization seems to be based on numbers from Comparitech's 'The World's Most Surveilled Cities' (which is worth a read). Which states China's numbers can only be based on estimates (as the CCP doesn't publicly disclose any real numbers): the speculative nature of which, possibly being the reason why it's not included here. The others are based on sources (one has to request access to, for some reason: which I'm not willing to do), but doubt represent reality: as it correctly recognizes many "private" cameras are public facing (especially in the Western world), which also makes it near impossible to discern which are actually public facing (which might not be all that relevant).

Any data processor of relevant size within the European Union (including those processing camera footage), is required by the GDPR to have an effective government agent (or "data protection officer") to oversee their operation. This agent (likely "working" for multiple processors) under professional secrecy, is legally required to comply with authorities' requests for additional processing (including: making accessible such data, apply processing operations outside of its processor's legal basis (without disclosing it to them), or even delete information): requests not to be disclosed publicly. So effectively, the EU's authorities have a legal backdoor to all these "private" cameras; and if visualized would create an entirely different picture.

has done nothing except for making people bypass it entirely

Which seems to be by design, based on similarity, to approaches taken by other governments: shifting the blame to citizens (reasonably) circumventing the legislation (creating the typical infighting), and granting further excuses to further tighten government control. Legislation as such, can only be introduced under a false pretense, or few politicians dare to be in support of such works. If introduced to "protect the children", you can gradually shape it to effectively fulfill your interest; instead of spoiling true intentions right away.

Same haha.

Ps: it seems lemmy.ml has banned you? Therefore I couldn't see your comments from .ml, but I do from .world; strange stuff...