I think that it's not unreasonable for game wardens, and other officials who are preventing or investigating poaching to enter privately owned non-curtilage land for that purpose. Otherwise, all privately owned land would be open to poaching with essential impunity, and hunting/fishing laws don't only apply to public land.
A trail camera, however, is not in and of itself evidence of poaching, and officers should have zero rights to interfere with someone else's trail camera in any way. Neither should officers be allowed to set up their own trail cameras on private land (without permission from the property owner). If officers find a trail camera, they should seek to speak with its owner, either by contacting the property owner, or by leaving a business card with the camera and waiting for the owner to contact them (if they so choose).
Taking the camera without probable cause was theft. There is almost always time for a warrant. And if there isn’t, you should still get the warrant BEFORE looking at the camera content. So many other issues to pursue…
From the quoted text it sounded like they did get a warrant to view. I think making a copy so as not to alter or taint the original is standard procedure, if not required, for evidentiary purposes.
It makes almost none of it better (we agree on that). But they actually followed some sort of evidentiary procedure. If we’re to be outraged at incompetence and exceeding authority we should know the rules and hammer where they are explicitly wrong and not make stuff up.
Regardless of whether there is “time,” they should not be able to take private property from a person’s private land without a warrant (or probable cause), any more than if it were in their house or car.
Taking a computer out of somebody’s home office and then getting a warrant to try to look inside is still taking the computer without a warrant. The same should go for these cameras.
Yeah, it annoys me to no end. First, they tried to convince the industry that users don’t want privacy, they want security, because somehow privacy would not be just one discipline underneath security.
And now that privacy has won, that even lawmakers have understood that it’s something that users need and should be able to demand, now they’re completely flipping their messaging on its head. Suddenly, they’re all about privacy. Except, of course, that they’re fucking lying.
Take the IP Protection “feature”. They hide your IP address from individual sites while hoovering up all of the user’s data into their own servers, to use for their own ends.
Privacy hasn’t been enhanced, if anything it’s been weakened by giving one company a log of everything done through the browser. So, it’s a fucking lie
Well, with that proxying feature, I mostly meant that they’re not doing it for the privacy, but rather for those other benefits.
Much like with 8.8.8.8 for DNS and AMP for the server-side, this feature locks down the client-side, ensuring that internet traffic goes over their infrastructure.
Yes, user privacy is short-term somewhat improved, because their competitors can’t track you quite as easily anymore, but if they truly cared about improving privacy/security, there would be so many much lower hanging fruits they could pick, like end-to-end-encryption for Chrome Sync by default. They don’t pick those, because it would impact their own ability to invade user privacy.
The only solution is to break them up. There is no other way - Google will keep perverting and manipulating social trends as long as they’re allowed to hold onto their position.
The web browser is the most important piece of software in the world. It should not be under the control of a single company - especially when that company is a massive monopolist with extreme conflicts of interest.
The web (and the entire internet) was built on standards. It is time to go back to multiple parties working together on standards. Not a single, monopolistic implementation.
(Google isn’t the only company that needs to be broken up by the way, but they’re definitely the most urgent.)
I’m in need of a new (to me) car soon and this is stopping me from even starting the shopping process. Now I know I can cross new Hondas off my list of consideration (I can’t stand to have notifications I can’t turn off). But that still leaves a lot research into information the car companies don’t want me to have and which I don’t want to have to do.
Maybe I’ll buy an old Crown Vic. They drive forever and don’t look like any of the cars that local police currently use.
2010 to 2015 is my golden era. All the creature comforts like bluetooth, heated seats, etc, reliable, efficient engines (companies like Toyota and Honda still use most of the engines that were used in this era), but none of the big tech additions we’ve seen since.
It is beyond obscene and makes Meta complicit in Israel’s killings of “pre-crime” targets and their families, in violation of International Humanitarian Law and Meta’s publicly stated commitment to human rights.
I mean if true - and it likely is - then this would be the third genocide Meta is implicated in, by my count, (Rohingya, Tigray) and there may be others they haven’t been called out for yet.
yeah but like I still use Facebook to staybin touch with people, and its super convenient despite the unusable enshittification, so I’m gonna need at least five genocides to stop.
Yeah. That’s a bit like the head coach on an American football team making the game saving tackle. I’m happy for the outcome, but that’s not supposed to be how it needs to work.
Good luck on challenging the government and case law about open fields. In my local area, a 10ft privacy fence around an entire property was just about the only thing that made a house’s curtilage extend to the property line. I was actually amazed when the court went in their favor.
For a long time the LED indicators were part of the enable circuit and therefore hardwired to turn on/off on camera “active”. These days though… The fact that it’s a firmware “feature” already says tons about it.
Ding ding ding. Unless it’s wired in sequence with the camera sensor’s power, it can’t be trusted. If software can control it, software can easily be used to turn it off.
Sorry but I’ll have to correct you there. The webcam (even the ones embedded to laptop screen frames) are a mere usb device, using four wires in total: 2 for power and 2 for serial comms. The device doesn’t get “powered on or off”. There’s a controller chip that handles everything, from the simple usb serial comms to image processing. What I was referring to is that, in the past, there was a pin on that chip which would go high indicating the chip was “called”, as in it had come out of standby. This pin was not software dependent and could not be changed. Manufacturers would use this enabled pin to control the led (amongst other things) but these days they don’t. Mostly because these pins get repurposed depending on the application and so it’s cheaper to use software to configure them with new functions instead of having pins that only carry out a single function. In theory is a smarter way to utilise chips in multiple products but by ignoring true customer privacy.
I’m so tired of people like triple ad quadruple posting in every other damn instance, we’re all federated, we dont need every post in every instance, thats called spamming. It literally takes the entire incentive to have more than one instance away from the entire Federated system when you use it this way.
If you feel like you’re not getting as much engagement as you suspect you should have, it’s probably because I’m not the only one blocking you to avoid seeing your spamming.
Lemmy’s webui only shows these once, so probably worth raising to the app developer.
Also, beehaw cannot see !privacy, whereas they can see the one on !privacy. The !privacyguides comm is mainly individuals who grew tired of r/privacy and wanted a space with less of the conspiracy-like paranoia, so some of those subs may not actually be interested in following the other two general privacy comms here on lemmy.
TL;DR IMO the three posts in this scenario make sense to me
Midroll ads did it for me. I’m just not willing to have them interrupt. And I’m not willing to let multiple minutes of ads play before every single video. Google forgets that, while YouTube may be the biggest platform, but it’s not the only one.
If i was you, i would buy a Google Pixel 8 (8a is cheaper than 8 and 8 pro). They all provide support for GrapheneOS, have 7 years of updates, MTE, and so on
I added an overview under Settings >> For You >> learn more
To go into a bit more detail:
It took me a while to craft the solution to make sure it was both effective + private. I was originally inspired by Canopy. They built a news aggregator with private & personalized posts a few years back and the idea sat in my head.
My approach was to do thorough research on the different signals used by big tech to make their recommendation engines, and just build ones that 1.) were possible given fediverse API limitations and 2.) private. I had to craft some novel approaches to make it work but I’m pretty happy with the outcome!
One of the biggest differences between the “big tech” approach and Quiblr’s is that most big tech does not keep data simply on your device. They store it in datacenters to build large social-webs to essentially cluster users (and push more relevant ads).
But I was able utilize many of the other signals used by big tech (e.g. communities you engage with, metadata of content you read, dwell time, post/comment/vote activity) and I designed it to work offline with no servers.
privacy
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.