• ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 days ago

      Remember that you’re not crazy for or alone in wanting that privacy. If I saw you shooting them out with a pellet gun then no, I didn’t.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      My sister said she loved not being told by random creepy dudes at the grocery store that she’d be prettier if she smiled more.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        is it schizo? Objectively? No not really. As far as popular culture, am i schizo for not wanting to reveal my identity to anybody? Probably a little bit.

        I would argue it may be a violation of unreasonable search, but definitely a violation of our right to privacy (that we should have).

        • inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Ah thanks for clarifying I was like wait I’m schizo?

          I’d say the right to privacy would be covered under the right to not be searched without a warrant.

          The facial recognition on every corner is an unreasonable search IMO and society has just accepted it? Morons with well I’ve got nothing to hide…

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Ah thanks for clarifying I was like wait I’m schizo?

            np, and just between the two of us, yeah you are :)

            I’d say the right to privacy would be covered under the right to not be searched without a warrant.

            it depends on the specifics i think, but from what i can understand the primary legal argument against it right now is actually “unreasonable search and seizure” and “illegal evidence collection” rather than, warrant specific things, though im sure that’s sort of adjacent.

            The problem right now is that none of our laws explicitly protect things like forcing people to use face ID in order to unlock their phone, because it isn’t technically “extracting” information from someone unwillingly. Similar issues with collecting evidence from the trash, or using AI facial recognition. There just aren’t any clear laws, and the police are taking advantage of it while they can.

            The facial recognition on every corner is an unreasonable search IMO and society has just accepted it? Morons with well I’ve got nothing to hide…

            i think for facial recognition, i would argue it’s a violation of right to privacy, rather than unreasonable search and seizure, because they aren’t searching for anything, or seizing anything, necessarily. I think i would rather have stronger privacy laws after the fact anyway.

            Also, facial recognition is mostly a problem with using cameras in public, rather than police using cameras in public, putting this under unreasonable search and seizure limits it to police activity explicitly, i would much rather not be facially recognized at all, when outside. Private entity, or not.

            • inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              There is no right to privacy which is why I think it should fall under the right against unreasonable search and seizure. They’re using your face and searching it against a database for no reason other than treating everybody like they’re a criminal to comfort rich peoples fee fees.

      • cadekat@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        No kidding. While on the surface the bans are about medical masks, I’m sure there’s a surveillance motive as well.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          NYC has an explicit ban on masks that conceal identities, as of a while ago now, unless that’s been repealed somehow.

          It’s an idea, for sure.

      • Turret3857@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        I genuinely, seriously doubt it. I imagine its to keep MAGAts happy while completely fucking them over socio-economically.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        unfortunately, yes, fortunately for me, and other people, i’m still correct in this regard.

        There’s nothing inherently wrong with wanting to obscure your identity, if there was the internet wouldn’t allow anonymity. People would be required to wear their government issued ID on their shirts. Etc.