cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/51620160

I love how they put a pic of "Epstein File Mark" in the article ;)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 90 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

"Upload your ID for every transaction to prove you're not a sex offender".

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    When buying a gun and/or pervert glasses, yes, sounds very reasonable?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 19 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)
  • [–] -3 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child)

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235223000867

    Given the recidivism rates in even the best performing countries is so high I disagree.

    Denmark, Finland and Norway have similar two year conviction rates when accounting for other factors.

    20-30% of sexual predators will offend again AND be caught within two years. Given the delays in reporting sexual abuse and the general lack of reporting to start with this is remarkably high.

    Given the risk these predators pose to innocent people they shouldn’t be trusted nor afforded the full rights available to ordinary citizens.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    if u cared about privacy y would u buy mr ihateprivacy glasses???

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Hot take, but the invasion of privacy only actually occurs when someone publishes the recording. Otherwise, making a personal recording of what someone can see or hear is no more invasive than them being there.

    You can't claim an expectation of privacy against someone when you're stood in the same room with them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    im guessing every recording is shared to meta no matter the persons intention or what they do

    its meta

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago*

    That's an interesting argument, however it probably wouldn't go that far.

    Taking it back to retro interpretations, sharing your photo with meta is basically the same as sharing your photo with a print company that takes and processes your negatives. They're acting on your behalf in a limited scope, so sharing with them is the same as you doing it all yourself.

    However it maybe comes back into play when that scope isn't limited, as Meta require in their terms of service. It doesn't matter what individuals say to Meta regarding their data, their prohibition is superseded by other users, who agree that they have permission to share other people's information with Meta.

    Meta isn't breaking privacy laws - you are.

  • source
  • parent