> Billboards - The latest can watch you as you go by and tailor their ads to suit. The country had at least 1400 high-tech billboards last year; it had at least 49 that also have number-plate recognition cameras to count cars (not identify their owners, the operators insist). Some malls have smartscreens that can gauge your mood.

Hah, Minority Report is here. Digital signage around me tailoring ads to my preferences is a freaky idea though, will they start showing me "Hot singles want to date you"? I suppose they'll be able to scan the crowd and see who's the richest^W who's the easiest to pry money from and then show an ad targeted to them. And a network of these cameras can conceivably even identify where I live and work ("We see this face shopping at this supermarket most weeks", "most mornings we spot him at this coffee place"), and by doing so guess my income and spending levels.

And scanning cars is an interesting idea. "It's a Cybertruck, show the ad for the penis-enlarging pill!".

One alarming method of surveillance I learned about this year was cars. Many cars come with built in surveillance and privacy violations. Several manufacturers allegedly sold the location data of car owners, tracked by their GPS systems (https://fortune.com/2024/07/26/general-motors-honda-and-hyun...). Some manufacturers revised their policies based on outrage, like GM (https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/gm-killed-program-that-sold...), but my recollection is others like Subaru did not. Many cars also have options for opting out of having your personal data resolve to data brokers and insurers but they opt you in by default.

Add the credit card readers/POS tablets at stores, Starbucks, etc to that list, which mostly have tiny cell phone cameras built into them now (whether you knew it or not)

We could add taxis to that list that use the Curb ride hailing system, with their "passenger information monitors" located in the rear of the taxi.

https://www.gocurb.com/terms

Is there really anything to do? Everyone is constantly uploading photos of my kids to Instagram and that's generating the same surveillance dragnet all these other things are building.

I don't see a way to opt-out without plastic surgery.

The surveillance problem is a matter of balance problem: if we are all able to surveil all others or none is able to surveil essentially anyone else forces are balanced there are only marginal issues. If someone can surveil nearly all but nearly all can't surveil the small cohort who surveil them than forces are not balanced.

Surveillance per se might be useful, let's say you want to know how much live traffic is there in your planned trip, alerts for incidents, natural phenomenon and so on. The issue is just the balance of forces and what can be done in case of unbalanced forces those who hold the knife from the handle side.

IMO the problem isn't so much cameras everywhere per se, but rather how the data may be shared or centralized or otherwise enable abuse.

Its really easy to point out that these systems exist. The cameras are often only slightly hidden. The problem is knowing what is being done with the data. Where the data goes and how it is used. You don't know who has pictures of your face, your current location, or a list of people with your religious beliefs/habits/likes/dislikes/political beliefs.

The combination of those items give people a motive and opportunity, and the only thing that is lacking is a choice of weapon. People have been mass murdering others over their political beliefs since forever. Poisons are a covert weapons, and car accidents can be created.

It is conspiratorial to think this way, but it is naive to look through the history until even recent years to dismiss these concerns.

Do we need public "digital twins" of watcher supply chains, as they construct digital twins of watchees?

Excellent article. Reminds me of an essay I read recently about surveillance capitalism: https://medium.com/discourse/defending-freedom-in-the-era-of...

I've noticed that whenever the subject of cameras in public places comes up on traditional media platforms, there's always talk about the 'debate as to whether we want these things/should allow them'. I suspect this is a planted misdirection (†) - the government and corporations that profit from this information would love you to waste your time talking about whether we should have this kind of surveillance, because it's already here. It would be far better if we could have a debate about who should be able to access this data. For example, there's a difference between a sworn police officer accessing public camera footage, and the same footage being send to a 3rd party by the police, being analysed in a foreign country by foreign workers.

† I'm not alleging a giant conspiracy theory about direct corporate control of the media, but it is well known that businesses 'seed' articles by sending unsolicited 'fact sheets' and talking points to reporters.

Even WHEN i don’t know much about computers, i never believed I could have TOTAL access to my spouse’s iPhone, TEXT MESSAGES ,snapchat, call logs , INSTAGRAM ,FACEBOOK, Line and WHATS APP without having physical contact until i was recommendation by my best friend to a professional hacker. He only asked for little information and the phone number of my spouse i never wanted to contact him at First because i was so scared but trust me it was worth the RISK because i was happy to get proof for my lawyer to file a divorce.

Contact him via email:spyrecovery36 @ gm ail c om.

[flagged]