OC, being propagandized local fools, they had to include unverified vilification of Russia and China + a focus on other societies than our own. Only a few very low figures from US/UK etc, despite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism
Jeebus, US/Western propaganda/mindset is thin and embarrassing !
I mean, if you think there is a low rate of cameras in Chinese cities you haven’t been there or spoken with anyone from there about it… yes the number is sensationalist and no way to verify
I don't know about Russia but China is a very strong surveillance state. The US is also pretty bad and currently getting worse so don't go on a BUT THE US!!!!! rant trying to defend China with whataboutism.
It's very popular to wail about how the UK is a police state. I guess it's because the UK is culturally close to the USA, but different in some ways, so people become most aware of those differences, no matter how big they truly are. And Americans are very bad at comparing their own country to others, so an article about how many cameras there are in the UK or in London does not necessarily get such a comparison; it only decries the situation abroad.
CCTV is the problem. Mass surveillance has to be stopped at the source. Just like the only way to guarantee a company won't leak your ID or other personal info is to not let them have it in the first place, the only way to ensure a recording of you isn't used for tracking or other malicious purposes is to not be recorded to begin with
How to actually do this I have no idea. But even if a company or government is legally bound to not use CCTV footage for nefarious purposes, there's little actually stopping them
This nice visualization seems to be based on numbers from Comparitech's 'The World's Most Surveilled Cities' (which is worth a read). Which states China's numbers can only be based on estimates (as the CCP doesn't publicly disclose any real numbers): the speculative nature of which, possibly being the reason why it's not included here. The others are based on sources (one has to request access to, for some reason: which I'm not willing to do), but doubt represent reality: as it correctly recognizes many "private" cameras are public facing (especially in the Western world), which also makes it near impossible to discern which are actually public facing (which might not be all that relevant).
Any data processor of relevant size within the European Union (including those processing camera footage), is required by the GDPR to have an effective government agent (or "data protection officer") to oversee their operation. This agent (likely "working" for multiple processors) under professional secrecy, is legally required to comply with authorities' requests for additional processing (including: making accessible such data, apply processing operations outside of its processor's legal basis (without disclosing it to them), or even delete information): requests not to be disclosed publicly. So effectively, the EU's authorities have a legal backdoor to all these "private" cameras; and if visualized would create an entirely different picture.
10 replies
hmmmm wonder if they had any agenda or ideological bias in their estimation of china
OC, being propagandized local fools, they had to include unverified vilification of Russia and China + a focus on other societies than our own. Only a few very low figures from US/UK etc, despite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism
Jeebus, US/Western propaganda/mindset is thin and embarrassing !
I mean, if you think there is a low rate of cameras in Chinese cities you haven’t been there or spoken with anyone from there about it… yes the number is sensationalist and no way to verify
I don't know about Russia but China is a very strong surveillance state. The US is also pretty bad and currently getting worse so don't go on a BUT THE US!!!!! rant trying to defend China with whataboutism.
Huh I would have guessed London would be far higher than LA.
It's very popular to wail about how the UK is a police state. I guess it's because the UK is culturally close to the USA, but different in some ways, so people become most aware of those differences, no matter how big they truly are. And Americans are very bad at comparing their own country to others, so an article about how many cameras there are in the UK or in London does not necessarily get such a comparison; it only decries the situation abroad.
Yeah I had never seen a comparison before. My expectation was just based on the amount of news I see on surveillance in a given area.
Stay away from those cities.
CCTV is the problem. Mass surveillance has to be stopped at the source. Just like the only way to guarantee a company won't leak your ID or other personal info is to not let them have it in the first place, the only way to ensure a recording of you isn't used for tracking or other malicious purposes is to not be recorded to begin with
How to actually do this I have no idea. But even if a company or government is legally bound to not use CCTV footage for nefarious purposes, there's little actually stopping them
This nice visualization seems to be based on numbers from Comparitech's 'The World's Most Surveilled Cities' (which is worth a read). Which states China's numbers can only be based on estimates (as the CCP doesn't publicly disclose any real numbers): the speculative nature of which, possibly being the reason why it's not included here. The others are based on sources (one has to request access to, for some reason: which I'm not willing to do), but doubt represent reality: as it correctly recognizes many "private" cameras are public facing (especially in the Western world), which also makes it near impossible to discern which are actually public facing (which might not be all that relevant).
Any data processor of relevant size within the European Union (including those processing camera footage), is required by the GDPR to have an effective government agent (or "data protection officer") to oversee their operation. This agent (likely "working" for multiple processors) under professional secrecy, is legally required to comply with authorities' requests for additional processing (including: making accessible such data, apply processing operations outside of its processor's legal basis (without disclosing it to them), or even delete information): requests not to be disclosed publicly. So effectively, the EU's authorities have a legal backdoor to all these "private" cameras; and if visualized would create an entirely different picture.