A Twitter thread from Cyrus Farivar elaborating on his post on Ring and the introduction of surveillance. A sacrifice with little gain:

via Clive Thompson

Liked One Ring to rule them all: Surveillance โ€˜smartโ€™ tech wonโ€™t make Canadian cities safer (The Conversation)

Ring represents an emerging governance system that, once established, we can neither vote for nor pull the curtains against. Framing Ring as a simple safety app fails to paint an accurate picture of the dangers of a makeshift corporate surveillance infrastructure.

People may assume thereโ€™s no risk to them, so long as they have nothing to hide. Regardless, surveillance of this kind still creates risks. At the societal level, the ocean of datafication created by pervasive smart technologies blurs the boundaries between financial, consumer and governmental systems. The datafication of our personal information ultimately reduces citizens to a collection of data points, open to misinterpretation, manipulation and monetization.

Liked net.wars: The choices of others (

A lawyer friend corrects my impression that GDPR does not apply. The Information Commissioner’s Office is clear that cameras should not be pointed at other people’s property or shared spaces, and under GDPR my neighbor is now a data controller. My friends can make subject access requests. Even so: do I want to pick a fight with people who can make my life unpleasant? All over the country, millions of people are up against the reality that no matter how carefully they think through their privacy choices they are exposed by the insouciance of other people and robbed of agency not by police or government action but by their intimate connections – their neighbors, friends, and family..

Yes, I mind. And unless my neighbor chooses to care, there’s nothing I can practically do about it.