@Zagorath@aussie.zone wanted to know, should you expect privacy in public places?

Before I answer that, I would like to give my genuine thanks to everyone who responded in my previous post where I asked you for some controversial privacy topics. You did not disappoint, and I'm glad I will be able to cover them!

This question is a bit complex, depending on how you ask it. The answer also largely depends on what you believe. If you believe that privacy is a fundamental right, then privacy should be expected no matter where you go. If the question is "Can you expect privacy..." versus "Should there be privacy...", the answer changes dramatically.

Is there currently privacy in public spaces?

In many places, there is little to no privacy when you walk out the door. With Ring doorbells latching on to every home like a parasite, or security cameras clinging to the ceiling of every store you walk inside, surveillance is everywhere. This section won't cover whether or not surveillance is moral/ethical/justified, but either way surveillance infringes on privacy. Even with no surveillance cameras, Sarah-from-down-the-street is always on a video call with her bestie.

Saying "privacy in public" is a bit of an oxymoron, since no matter what you will always give up a little privacy the moment you walk out the door. Things you do privately in the bathroom are simply not allowed in public places.

Should there be more privacy in public spaces?

Now may be a good time to clear up a common misconception. What is privacy? Privacy does not mean obscuring every detail of your life. Privacy is the ability or choice to share or hide information about yourself. That is why surveillance cameras infringe on privacy: You have no control over what they record, who has access to those recordings, and what those recordings will be used for.

That sort of answers the question, too. If you believe privacy is a fundamental right, then there should be an expectation of privacy in public spaces, and so a reform needs to happen.

What are the real effects of privacy in public spaces?

People act differently when they know they are being surveilled. See the Panopticon for an experiment about that. It has negative effects, whether people realize or not.

@Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de told a story that I particularly love:

"Just last week, my partner and I were on a long hike. No one was around us so to loosen our muscles we started dancing like goofballs on the trail only to look up and find a drone hovering in the shadows recording us. I was embarrassed, but my partner is a very private person and was really upset. [...]"

When they expected to be in a secluded, private space, they freely expressed themselves. The moment they realized that someone had been watching, they became embarrassed or upset, like a switch had flipped. That is the real affect surveillance has on us. We express ourselves less freely, we conform to rules without question out of fear. Surveillance becomes a form of oppression on a wide scale.

I even have my own anecdote. I once took a trip to a small town. When I got there, I subconsciously looked around for security cameras. I do that to gauge how much privacy I currently have. I then noticed that I couldn't see any obvious security cameras. I stopped and looked around harder. The town had not a single security camera in sight. I have almost no way to describe the sense of calm and relaxation that washed over me. It felt like someone giving you a massage after being stressed all week, or finally being honest with everyone about a secret you've been keeping. It was such a nice feeling to walk around a town privately.

Why do we have surveillance?

The main justification for these surveillance measures is to prevent crime. It makes sense intuitively, if you have an eye on every corner you can catch any criminal easily. However, it ignores one massive flaw: criminals will always find a way to do things privately. If you make privacy illegal, it doesn't change anything, because criminals won't follow the law anyways.

I have my own quote about this, that I love very much: “Unjust laws only burden the just, as the lawless will not heed them.” Removing privacy only hurts the people who will follow and abide by the rules. You're removing the privacy of the good people, while the criminals will program "illegal" software to achieve privacy. Giving privacy to everyone means that, yes, it makes criminals' jobs easier, but it means we can shift to actually solving the problems that cause the crimes in the first place. "The best way to conquer bad ideas is with better ideas, not by suppressing ideas." - Naomi Brockwell

"The optimal crime rate is not zero. We can't burn down the entire world just to stop somebody from stealing a pack of gum. The cost is too high. There is a percentage of crime that is going to exist. It's not ideal, but it is optimal." - Nick We need privacy for a free society. Surveillance is not the answer for fighting crime. There are ways to combat crime without infringing on privacy.

Is blurring your house on the map unreasonable?

This question is another one brought up by @Zagorath@aussie.zone. Blurring your house is a way to achieve some privacy, and in that scope, it is good to do. However, as @RiderExMachina@lemmy.ml points out, it could cause someone to do the opposite and start looking closer into why your house is blurred. That's called the Streisand effect.

Site note: I find it hilarious why the Streisand effect is named how it is. The story goes that Barbra Streisand tried to hide her place of residence by suppressing a photograph that had made it to the public. That, of course, had the opposite effect, drawing more attention to the photograph and her residence. Then, even more attention was drawn, because the Streisand effect got named after her and the very same image is now plastered on Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, blurring your house on the map doesn't provide much privacy, since the organization who photographed it still has a clear picture of it. It doesn't stop the surveillance. It's not unreasonable to blur it, though. You should still want privacy against the Streisand effect. The best solution would be a quiet legal take down of the images altogether.

I have another story to go along with this. I got a job, and it was later revealed in conversation to me and my coworkers that our boss likes to look up everybody's address on Google Street View. Everyone was uncomfortable with that, but our boss saw no issue with it. This is a legitimate case where blurring your house is a good idea. Sure, people may try to ask you why it's blurred, or try to look up pictures on other sites like housing retail, but it still prevents (frankly, creepy) bosses from snooping at your home.

Conclusion

Privacy is a fundamental part of our lives, and surveillance infringes on that. We should all do our part to gain what privacy we can, because every bit of privacy you gain now is freedom you will have in the future. This was a lot of fun to write, and I thank @Zagorath@aussie.zone and all of you for your suggestions. I will continue to tackle each of the topics asked in the previous post one by one.

Thank you for reading!

- The 8232 Project

For those of us hit by the recent announcement here is a graph I found with some other services worth checking for your next voyages. I have crossed out All-Debrid too as that is also hosted in France and is bound to be hit by the same hammer as Real-Debrid was.

Feel free to share your alternative solutions in the comments below, but always do you research carefully!

The graph shows which Debrid services are supported by each addon for Stremio. Torbox seems to be a new popular and modern alternative. If anyone has any experience with any of the listed services then feel free to share your experiences in the comments.

Source to graph: https://guides.viren070.me/stremio/faq?debrid-service=real-debrid#which-debrid-services-are-supported-by-each-addon

I hate big tech controlling social media. I desperately want social media to be federated.

I really love community-driven social media like Reddit. Lemmy feels… too small. I really loved that Reddit let me jump into any niche hobby, and instantly I had a community. Lemmy, you’ll be lucky if that community even exists, and if it does, chances are nobody has posted in ages.

On the other hand, Lemmy is full of political content lately. I’ve basically been doom scrolling everything US election-related, and it’s really starting to take a toll on my mental health.

I know I can filter content. I know I can post and be the change I seek. Yet, it feels like an uphill battle.

Not sure what the point of this is, or if it’s even the right community to vent about this. I just really want to replace Reddit, but I find myself going back more and more (e.g. r/homekit is very active compared to Lemmy version).

I don't know who started this, but I always feel frustrated when I see headline along the lines of "USA says" or "China signal", countries are not people.

I don't understand why don't even the best news outlets put headlines like " Official x said this on official order on USA" Or something like that.

I really don't understand who came up with this way of reporting where they report on officials as their country and I always thought that this is dumb.

Now watch the stuff not show up until Tuesday. 😆

Summary

California lawmakers are introducing new bills to strengthen abortion access in response to potential nationwide restrictions under Donald Trump’s presidency.

The proposals include expanding emergency abortion care, increasing access to birth control for Medi-Cal recipients, and improving licensing for alternative birthing centers.

With abortion rights enshrined in California’s constitution since 2022, the state aims to remain a sanctuary for reproductive care.

"OIG Investigators found that the DEA paid one airline employee tens of thousands of dollars over the past several years in proceeds from cash seized as a result of their tips. However, the vast majority of those airport seizures aren't accompanied by criminal prosecutions. This has led to years of complaints from civil liberties groups that the DEA is abusing civil asset forfeiture—a practice that allows police to seize cash and other property suspected of being connected to criminal activity such as drug trafficking, even if the owner is never arrested or charged with a crime."

The Anti-Defamation League, a US organization that aims to combat antisemitism and support Israel, has published a report alleging that Steam is "rife with extremism and antisemitism," and accusing Valve of allowing the spread of hateful and extremist material through a "highly permissive approach to content policy."

The ADL's Center on Extremism found "found millions of examples of extremist and hateful content, including explicit hate symbols like sonnenrads and 'happy merchants,' as well as copypastas (blocks of text that are copied and pasted to form images or long-form writing) shaped into swastikas" being shared on the platform. The ADL also found "tens of thousands of pieces of terrorism-related content on Steam Community," including more than 15,000 public accounts with profile pictures featuring the flags or logos of ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/48005934

An inquiry group setup by the U.K.’s antitrust authority has provisionally found that Apple’s policies are “holding back innovation in the browsers we use to access the web on mobile phones.”

While the report focuses substantively on Apple, it also highlighted a revenue-sharing agreement with Google, noting that the duo “earn significant revenue” when Google Chrome is used on iOS, which reduces their “financial incentives to compete.” 

The announcement comes in the same week as the Department of Justice (DoJ) in the U.S. said that Google should divest its Chrome browser, after a judge ruled in August that the internet giant was tantamount to an illegal monopoly on online search.

Japan's National Consumer Affairs Center on Wednesday suggested citizens start "digital end of life planning" and offered tips on how to do it. The Center's somewhat maudlin advice is motivated by recent incidents in which citizens struggled to cancel subscriptions their loved ones signed up for before their demise, because they didn't know their usernames or passwords. The resulting "digital legacy" can be unpleasant to resolve, the agency warns, so suggested four steps to simplify ensure our digital legacies aren't complicated:

• Ensuring family members can unlock your smartphone or computer in case of emergency;
• Maintain a list of your subscriptions, user IDs and passwords;
• Consider putting those details in a document intended to be made available when your life ends;
• Use a service that allows you to designate someone to have access to your smartphone and other accounts once your time on Earth ends.

The Center suggests now is the time for it to make this suggestion because it is aware of struggles to discover and resolve ongoing expenses after death. With smartphones ubiquitous, the org fears more people will find themselves unable to resolve their loved ones' digital affairs -- and powerless to stop their credit cards being charged for services the departed cannot consume.