cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/54045255
I have adopted the habit of ignoring red lights.
Rationale: If cars did not exist, cyclists would never have to stop. Every time I must stop at a traffic signal it is to cator for motorists who are mostly a self-serving detriment to public health and safety. #FuckCars.
I used to obey all the traffic rules but after coming to the realisation that much of my time is wasted and my journey is downgraded so copious lazy people can exploit a luxury (some demographics aside). Fuck that. I now run red lights like crazy.
Now I must consider that Tesla may fuck up my lifestyle because Tesla is a moving point of unchecked uncontrolled surveillance. Theoretically, Tesla could be grabbing the faces of cyclists. It could offer to report cyclists who run reds. It could sell that info to law enforcement. Am I overthinking this or is this a problem to watch out for?
OTOH, I am somewhat looking forward to a day when I can spot when a car is self-driving and (if I can ever gain confidence that they won’t mistake me for a tumbleweed) I would happily take liberties – to cut-off the car and force it to slow down and give way. I hope that tactic can go from dream world to real world.
Are you suggesting that Tesla’s patent on facial recognition is a hoax? Or that they don’t intend to use it?
Where do you live that has Tesla’s but not capitalism? What car maker is not willing to exploit a profit opportunity?
I don’t disagree with you. However:
Sure but this is not one of those cases.
Plz read the thread for context. Tesla makes cars with cameras. That alone makes them oppressive agents of surveillance. (yes, surveillance is a form of oppression). The facial rec is a trivial means to add value to the data they already collect. You would be foolish to assume a profit-driven corporation has no intent to profit – to believe Tesla gives the slightest shit about privacy and then to take that to the far-fetched extent of turning away profitable data.
Yuh-huh!
No. It doesn’t. Literally all modern cars have cameras. They’re required by law, and have been for some time now.
Well, yes, but that’s not what’s happening. Businesses can be profitable without surveillance. They did it for thousands of years.
Lots of companies care about privacy to the extent that their consumers care about privacy.
My statement remains true despite yours. Being required by law does not cease to make them agents of surveillance. Nor does this obviate the point I was making.
That’s not how corporations work. Corporations have a duty to their shareholders to maximise profit. To fail to do so is to violate the constitution of the corporation.
Exceptionally, there are some corporations with good causes coded into their constitution whereby profit is either impossible or not a priority. Tesla is not one of them.
Nonsense.
Not even that. Even if you have a corporation who presents itself as privacy respecting, like DuckDuckGo, in the end it is only privacy theatre in play (amid privacy scandals by DDG). It’s about perception of privacy. And that perception only relates to the patrons, not other people. A cyclist riding past a Tesla is not a Tesla customer. It’s orthoganol to Tesla’s privacy policy, even if Musk gave a shit about cyclists (when in fact Musk is outspoken against cycling infrastructure).
I can’t prove a negative. If you have evidence of any of these claims, please share them. If you’re just presuming that they’re happening without evidence, that’s not something I can argue with.
No they’re suggesting you’re gonna get hit by a car. The face scanning is very much a secondary concern to the possibility of injury or death.
Nonsense. Plz read what you are responding to before responding. Please study what “tinfoil hat” means.