Way back when villages and towns were hella smaller, unapproved behavior was nipped on the bud, because people talk and there were less people that you just couldn't disappear into the masses. There were _actual_ real social consequences.
_Technically_ we're just moving back to basics, but the social consequences of the increased awareness should apply to everyone – equally.
garciasn•3h ago
JohnFen•2h ago
I disagree. This is totally an example of how we're living in a surveillance state. A relatively minor example, sure, but it's part and parcel of the fact that it's impossible to exist in public (and difficult to exist in private) without actively being under surveillance.
If that's not a surveillance state, I don't know what is.
jpc0•2h ago
Being out in public has never been a privacy violation, only an anonymity one and who ever guaranteed your anonymity?
singleshot_•1h ago
I live twenty two hundred miles from Bob and Julie but I know exactly who they are, where they work, and why everyone in America thinks they are bad people.
I am concerned but not surprised that this distinction could escape a person.
garciasn•39m ago
Frankly; this is exactly what happened here. Do you feel there was a 'surveillance state' in the 1880s? I don't.
singleshot_•30m ago
So no, I don’t feel like there was a surveillance state in the nineteenth century for what must now must feel like a collection of the most obvious reasons ever collected in one post.
jpc0•34m ago
For you neighbour sleeping with a coworker you likely have no idea unless you know who he/she is (good on you if you do, you are a dying breed) and the news would not give a damn.
Your anonymity isn’t in question here, as the CEO of a company you gave up any right to anonymity and getting caught in public with your mistress was a failure in exposure not a failure of the state to protect your privacy.
If this was footage from a concert that happen to catch something happening in the CEOs back yard or living room 100% there would be a lawsuit because that would be the invasion of privacy you think it is, the news would likely still run with the story.
singleshot_•11m ago
JohnFen•7m ago
But understand, I'm not talking about whether or not there's a "privacy violation". I'm talking about being forced to live in a society where you're always under surveillance and so can never really be free.
ncruces•2h ago
Could've been 20 years ago in a concert and they bump into someone who knows them while hugging.
So what's different here? That people on the internet where “quickly” able to figure out who they are because it went viral?
I'm sure randomly getting caught on national TV 20 years ago could have had the same effect. All it takes is one person to know them.
NicuCalcea•2h ago
JohnFen•9m ago
NicuCalcea•4m ago
MoonGhost•2m ago
If it is a surveillance then street photography is too. Camera pointing at spectators isn't good either...
Barrin92•32m ago
It absolutely has. This is what real everyday surveillance is that shapes people's behavior. When you cannot go anywhere without in your head thinking "am I on a camera or a microphone?" you're in a surveillance society. It's significantly more insidious and pervasive than any public camera is.
I recently talked with a friend about the fact that you don't see people going skinny dipping any more as we did when we were teenagers spending a day at a lake, and it's pretty obvious why. Smartphone cameras, everyone says they're afraid that someone takes an unflattering picture and shares it with the entire internet. That's how you breed a nation of neurotic people. This wasn't possible a few decades ago or at least not practical.
Every single spot with an internet connection has effectively become a stage where the slightest mishap can turn you into a joke in front of an infinitely large audience. It is no surprise that the mental state of young people is what it is and why they're anxious about the most everyday things. It's literally the logic of the Panopticon, you're going to police yourself harder than anyone externally ever could.