…and a great security/relief for victims.
I’m a vivid apologetic for privacy and security, but this seems like an acceptable thing.
People seem to be fine to be transparent and 24/7 surveilleid with their phones. Some even seem to be fine to install doorcams from US-bigtech or spy-devices that can switch on a light. Heck, they even pay for those!
This at least is a vers useful application of privacy invasion.
People seem to be fine to be transparent and 24/7 surveilleid with their phones. Some even seem to be fine to install doorcams from US-bigtech or spy-devices that can switch on a light. Heck, they even pay for those!
Yeah, assuming courts take the rights of the accused seriously it could be a win win, especially awaiting trial and during reintegration after prison. More safety and security for the victim and less need for more restrictive measures for the accused/released. It could easily be the difference between being stuck in jail for months and being granted bail.
The problem is when you think about actual non-stalkers.
I think this is a too rough, crude, gross, extreme, disproportionate and easy to abuse and misused “solution” for that problem.
There are many overly narcissistic and self-centered people who are going to be thinking that anyone who walks in the same direction as they are necessarily an stalker, and then there is the issue of revenge, blackmail, hate crimes and so on that a person can commit with an application of that nature.
Ok, but consider the falsely accused who may be stuck in jail awaiting trial. Yes, this is absolutely a burden on the accused, but it’s a significantly lighter burden than other means of ensuring safety for the accuser.
It definitely should be used with caution and as part of an attempt to find a balance between the needs of the accused and accuser. But fortunately that seems to be the case at the moment.
…and a great security/relief for victims. I’m a vivid apologetic for privacy and security, but this seems like an acceptable thing.
People seem to be fine to be transparent and 24/7 surveilleid with their phones. Some even seem to be fine to install doorcams from US-bigtech or spy-devices that can switch on a light. Heck, they even pay for those!
This at least is a vers useful application of privacy invasion.
yeah, not us
Yeah, assuming courts take the rights of the accused seriously it could be a win win, especially awaiting trial and during reintegration after prison. More safety and security for the victim and less need for more restrictive measures for the accused/released. It could easily be the difference between being stuck in jail for months and being granted bail.
Copy-paste from another comment I did:
The problem is when you think about actual non-stalkers.
I think this is a too rough, crude, gross, extreme, disproportionate and easy to abuse and misused “solution” for that problem.
There are many overly narcissistic and self-centered people who are going to be thinking that anyone who walks in the same direction as they are necessarily an stalker, and then there is the issue of revenge, blackmail, hate crimes and so on that a person can commit with an application of that nature.
deleted by creator
Well, if someone is falsefully labeled a stalker, then what happens? He won’t come near.
Also, as said, the chance this stalker is already fine with being tracked all around by every device he owns, is probably near 100, so who cares?
Ok, but consider the falsely accused who may be stuck in jail awaiting trial. Yes, this is absolutely a burden on the accused, but it’s a significantly lighter burden than other means of ensuring safety for the accuser.
It definitely should be used with caution and as part of an attempt to find a balance between the needs of the accused and accuser. But fortunately that seems to be the case at the moment.