Cops only like technology when they can abuse it to avoid having to do real investigative police work.
They don’t care to understand the technology in any deep manner, and as we’ve seen with body cams, when they retain full control over the technology, it’s basically a farce to believe it could be used to control their behavior.
I mean, on top of that, a lot of “forensic science” isn’t science at all and is arguably a joke.
Cops like using the veneer of science and technology to act like they’re doing “serious jobs” but in reality they’re just a bunch of thugs trying to dominate and control.
In other words, this is just the beginning, don’t expect them to stop doing stuff like this, and further, expect them to start producing “research” that “justifies” these “investigation” methods and see them added to the pile of bullshit that is “fOrEnSiC sCiEnCE.”
After the murder of Michael Brown, body cams were lauded by centrists as a way to prevent police from unlawfully killing people. And there’s never been a single police shoo- oh wait
TBH: Tech companies are not much different from how you described cops.
They don’t usually bother to learn the tech they are using properly and take all the shortcuts possible. You see this by the current spout of AI startups. Sure, LLMs work pretty good. But most other applications of AI is more like: “LOL, no idea how to solve the problem. I hooked it up to this blackbox, which i don’t understand, and trained it to give me the results i want.”
Yea I didn’t know internet dashcams like the above existed, sounds like it would be expensive to get the same benefits out of it. A dashcam should work like a blackbox, it can’t lose data during a collision. The data should be easily accessible and not locked behind some proprietary format.
I’ve heard Garmin recommended for watches, maybe similar for dashcams? But again, like others are saying, most brands should probably be ok
Better to look for other factors like tolerance to shake/temperature or video quality in poor conditions (darkness, fog, glare)
Because if it is the hardware you want to keep and not the software, there are good android based options. And if what you want is control over the software, there are also good android options. I’d recommend a Pixel phone, and you’ll always have the option to de-goggle it completely with either CalyxOs, GrapheneOs or similar ones.
I was more poking fun at how ios users who let an ultra mega corp holds all their data and actively cripples privacy efforts while touting a false sense of privacy as marketing, never ask to de-apple their iPhones
Sorry, but I have bad news for you. Privacy in major car brands no longer exists.
You don’t say where your family member lives, but you might look into smaller regional brands that focus on cheap cars for less overdeveloped areas of the world. Be aware the tradeoff is probably in safety features.
GM for example you cannot remove OnStar from their vehicles. But with my Subaru removing the starlink module was a ~20 minute procedure. You’ll need an aftermarket harness in order to maintain the front speakers.
Probably lukewarm take: Social media shouldn’t be a utility because it provides no social value or improvement of quality of life in the same way other genuine public utilities like electricity, water, sewer services, or general access to the internet, might. It’s also putting the government in a position in which it functionally would have to provide a platform for everyone equally, Neo-Nazis, climate deniers, anti-vaccers, and every other person with “insert terrible belief here” included.
Ultimately, saying social media should be a public utility is like saying casinos and strip clubs should be public utilities. Just because it’s fun to use doesn’t mean it’s good for society or come anywhere close to meeting the definition for the level of necessity typically attached to something as a public utility.
When businesses ask you to contact their help-desk via WhatsApp, it’s a utility. When people call and message friends, family, and colleagues almost exclusively on WhatsApp or Messenger, it’s a utility.
It’s also putting the government in a position in which it functionally would have to provide a platform for everyone equally, Neo-Nazis […]
Godwin’s Law People preaching [insert terrible belief] on a government platform would be removed and charged for hate speech just as much as they would be if preaching these things in public spaces. If your government gives people with terrible_belief.jpg the chance to preach on public property, that’s not a public property issue, that’s a government issue.
Ultimately, saying social media should be a public utility is like saying casinos and strip clubs should be public utilities.
No, it isn’t. If anything, turning certain popular social media apps into public utilities would limit them from being pure dopamine hits. Let other websites exist to fill the cesspool void. Not the one my grandma uses.
When businesses ask you to contact their help-desk via WhatsApp, it’s a utility. When people call and message friends, family, and colleagues almost exclusively on WhatsApp or Messenger, it’s a utility.
Except…no, it’s not. That’s an extremely naive understanding of what a “public utility” is. A public utility is not defined by how many people use something. Public utilities are essential services that typically operate on economies of scale. That is to say services without realistic replacement and which have large upfront creation and maintenance costs and which only make sense to provide access to a large number of people. You can’t replace electricity with some alternate source of power. It’s electricity. Same for water. They’re fundamental services that are required for other services to exist. Without electricity you don’t have phone or internet. Without water you can’t have sewer systems or indoor plumbing.
WhatsApp, by comparison, is trivially easy to replace. A business chooses to use WhatsApp for customer service. They could just as easily setup a Discord server or just establish an 800 number for you to call. They have immediate drop-in replacements. Arguing otherwise is sort of like arguing that Coke should be considered a public utility because a business serves Coke products. They don’t have to serve Coke. They could serve Pepsi. Or anything else.
Also, your reasoning is kind of skewed, because in order to even use something like WhatsApp, you need other, already existing services. Namely internet access. It makes literally no sense to say “WhatsApp should be a utility” without first arguing that “internet access for all individuals at a national level should be a public utility.” Which I would personally argue is something that does qualify as a utility, far more than any specific social media services or app, and the fact that it isn’t is a huge problem for the United States.
Godwin’s Law People preaching [insert terrible belief] on a government platform would be removed and charged for hate speech just as much as they would be if preaching these things in public spaces.
Oh, okay, “Godwin’s Law” is it? Cool. Here’s an actual law. Like a literal piece of legislation that exists: it’s called the First Amendment. I don’t know if you’re just speaking from a non-American context, or just don’t know how “freedom of speech” is codified into law in the United States. Maybe you’re a kid or something and just haven’t learned that in school yet. But freedom of speech in public places is universally protected under the constitution. Like, there are still public Klan rallies in certain parts of the country. This is what allows those to happen. If the United States government maintained its own social media service, it would functionally not have the power to moderate any content that was not explicitly illegal. Bigotry and hate speech are not illegal under the constitution.
First off, I think you are being very rude. I didn’t call you names or make assumptions, so please treat this with more respect than a Twitter thread.
WhatsApp, by comparison, is trivially easy to replace.
Olvid, a French alternative to WhatsApp, was made in 2019. It took a law passing last month banning all ministers from using non in-house messaging services to stop people from using WhatsApp. I wouldn’t consider that “trivially easy”.
Also, your reasoning is kind of skewed, because in order to even use something like WhatsApp, you need other, already existing services. Namely internet access.
You didn’t mention Internet access and so neither did I. I’m happy we both agree it should be a utility.
I don’t know if you’re just speaking from a non-American context, or just don’t know how “freedom of speech” is codified into law in the United States.
I already said this is a “government problem”. I said this in reference to the US government, because this isn’t really an issue for most countries :/
Beat me to the punch, I was saying just as much, considering the history of forensic science in general. It won’t be long before they’re producing bogus “research” to justify it at a new investigative method.
The reliability of bloodstain-pattern analysis has never been definitively proven or quantified, but largely due to the testimony of criminalist Herbert MacDonell, it was steadily admitted in court after court around the country in the 1970s and ’80s. MacDonell spent his career teaching weeklong “institutes” in bloodstain-pattern analysis at police departments around the country, training hundreds of officers who, in turn, trained hundreds more.
…
In 2009, a watershed report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences cast doubt on the discipline, finding that “the uncertainties associated with bloodstain-pattern analysis are enormous,” and that experts’ opinions were generally “more subjective than scientific.” More than a decade later, few peer-reviewed studies exist, and research that might determine the accuracy of analysts’ findings is close to nonexistent.
I know Europe is probably like the best place for digital privacy, but at the same time for me it’s unsettling to see that some of the European cities are the most surveiled cities in the world, and how even countries in Europe are trying to ban e2e encryption
Add the 5-9-14 eyes, strict anti piracy rules in some countries, stories about people getting arrested for messaging something, or doing something political, and you will get a pretty grim picture
My main problem with this, I don’t like being surveiled, nobody needs to have a thread model against being surveiled, because this is just nuts
Probably my stand is a little bit radical, I usually don’t carry a sim card, use Lora for a remote access to my home server, I would never go to the land of free or use any of their services, same with the land of China
They are looking to buy new, and need Android Auto and CarPlay
I was active on an automotive forum around the time when that sort of thing started to be seen as a "need" by car salesmen and some of their more enthusiastic customers. The big new thing was "infotainment" and it seemed like the whole industry was insisting we'd all soon see how essential this stuff was. I was disdainful of the idea then, and have only become more so. Cars should have an AM/FM radio receiver, and aside from lights and a horn that's all they need for communications.
That's not the answer you're looking for, but it seems reasonably on-topic here. If you must get a new car, the easiest route to having it not spy on you as much as it can all the time is to make sure it doesn't have a SIM card (or remove the one it does have) and never connect your phone to it in any way except perhaps via a 3.5mm audio jack.
Cell phone tracking is common place. If you carry one, you’re being tracked, profiled and having your data correlated with others. The question is whether you support living in a surveillance society. If you do, grab a cell phone and be happy. If not, get rid of it and use alternative communication methods. It’s a simple choice. In my experience, most people choose convenience over privacy.
I don’t have a great answer to your question, but you might be able to find a relatively cheap car that isn’t “smart” and doesn’t have a touchscreen or anything. Do they make those anymore? Then, you could add an aftermarket stereo receiver to it, like some of the options in this video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t1GdI9UsEI
Yes, that’s still a “smart” stereo but it’s NOT connected to any of the car manufacturer’s metrics or systems, right? So the separation makes it seem more privacy-friendly to me. I could be thinking about this incorrectly, but it seems logical to me. There might be some stereo receivers that are more private than others, but you’d have to do your own research for that.
Damn, I’m looking around and don’t see any, even the cheapest Toyotas and Kias have a big touchscreen with Android and CarPlay. I’m not sure what happens if you take that out and replace it with an aftermarket receiver, but it appears to be possible because Crutchfield sells receivers for a 2024 Corolla: crutchfield.com/…/Digital-Multimedia-Video-Receiv…
I’m also seeing people online saying that there are cars made for businesses that still come with no “smart” features. But I have no clue how you would buy one of those, I doubt they have them at dealerships: reddit.com/…/what_cars_less_than_5_years_old_are_…
Or, you could just get a used car, save some money, and check all the low-tech boxes.
I wouldn’t call him mental ill. Maybe he’s a small time crook, sells and smokes weed and has a little bit of paranoia.
Truth be told, in my criminal past (mostly online fraud, but some real life crime too), I have had similar thoughts. But hey, don’t do stupid shit in countries which you don’t know.
You’re mostly correct. But they reason i’m paranoid because I just don’t think it’s a right thing to spy on people. I’m more kind of a free spirit and share love guy, and I don’t like the idea of living in the world of lies being constantly observed
Edit: In addition, you never know what’s going to be illegal tomorrow, you don’t need anything to hide to feel disgusted about governments spying on people
Then you should really only consider mass surveillance via cameras as a “big” concern. I’m not much of a travel guy, cause being handicapped has it’s downside, but afaik there aren’t many cameras spread across Europe, mostly near/on main train stations, public transport and similar public places. Use a cap/hat and maybe sunglasses. I haven’t heard of any AI/biometrical real time/logging/analyzing being used in production yet (but it’s being discussed). Don’t use public wifi, get an anonymous simcard (roaming data esims for some crypto-dollars) and a GrapheneOS Pixel smartphone (use it only when needed). Pay by cash and be nice to other humans. And don’t think too much about stuff you can’t control! Don’t let you get mad and restrict your life too hard because of stupid politicians and governments xD
Have fun exploring Europe! Take a look at Italy, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Netherlands. Poland and the Czech Republic are nice too, but it’s harder there to communicate in English IME.
oh: and as a drug user, usually prescribed opioids (no abuse, I need them and have a prescription), but (a)busing weed (got a script too, but usually buy from the dealer/vape HHC currently) and hallucinogens/“fun”-drugs (LSD, Shrooms and Special K), I only had problems in Germany because of THC (haven’t had a script at this time). But usually it’s OK to party, but don’t be too open about your use. Funniest moment was in Amsterdam. Some friends and me were sitting on a bench near a little garden, drinking beers and smoking some Js. When the police drove by, we first wanted to hide the Joint, but remembered ah, no public booze in Amsterdam, and had to hide our beers instead. It’s usually the other way round :P
About pixels and sim cards, I don’t really use sim cards. For services that require phone numbers I use modems attached to my homeserver(of course no name), and access them with Lora mesh network(radio)
Your answer is actually really what I wanted to hear, good opinion on the current situation 👏
Drugs are fun, but I don’t really worry about this, do rarely, don’t like weed, i’m safe 😄
My biggest problem with drug usage would be not the authorities, but more general mood of the regular people. I don’t like countries that are hostile to people partying, getting drunk, or high
It’s hard to explain, it’s just I’ve beeed to places that feel fun when you’re high, and the opposite and they start calling the police (so I just think this stuff is very mean, and don’t want to be around people like that)
privacy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.