Sounds like there’s a logical fallacy in there somewhere. Death by 1000 cuts? Isn’t that how we got into the current situation — by slowly giving up privacy one step at a time?
With a phone, I can at least make the choice whether to track myself or not (by using the phone). With a doorbell cam, now you’re involving everyone in your neighborhood. They don’t have a choice.
I have no doubt someone is going to say that those people are in a public space, but there there is a huge difference between the theoretical concept of being in public, and the actual reality of public spaces being under video surveillance 24x7.
Have you not heard that Amazon has been partnering with local law enforcement to give them access to a bunch of cameras? It’s not about just giving your data to Amazon or Google anymore.
Also, in the US, there is the Third Party Doctrine. Any data you give to a third party can be given to the government without any Fourth Amendment protections. By using these services you are giving up your Constitutional rights.
Well the "slippery slope" argument is also a logical fallacy.
> With a doorbell cam, now you’re involving everyone in your neighborhood. They don’t have a choice. With a phone, I can at least make the choice whether to track myself or not (by using the phone). With a doorbell cam, now you’re involving everyone in your neighborhood. They don’t have a choice. I have no doubt someone is going to say that those people are in a public space, but there there is a huge difference between the theoretical concept of being in public, and the actual reality of public spaces being under video surveillance 24x7.
I'll say it. There is nothing being tracked that isn't public information. There is no information being revealed other than the fact that someone was walking by house A at time Y, which is information anyone looking at the street at that time would have. What is the meaningful difference between the "theory" of being in public, and a particular area being under surveillance 24x7?
> Also, in the US, there is the Third Party Doctrine. Any data you give to a third party can be given to the government without any Fourth Amendment protections. By using these services you are giving up your Constitutional rights.
Again, what is the worry about the data a doorbell cam generates falling into the hands of the government? I do not argue that it can be dangerous to serve up private information and data in a way that can be obtained by undesired third parties and the government. I argue that a doorbell cam doesn't generate any data of the kind people need to worry about. Hence, why these articles are largely sensationalism in my view.
If you don't feel in your bones the difference between "someone might be watching, and perhaps—unlikely, but perhaps—if they're a real weirdo or I've done something to really draw their interest, recording, but probably neither is happening" and "several someones are, at all times and wherever I go that's not somewhere I have complete control over, definitely recording", I don't even know how to begin to have a discussion about this.
Slippery slope fallacy gets trotted out too often, and I'm starting to sour more when it does. The actual fallacy is assuming that all slopes are necessarily slippery. But it is equally a fallacy to assume that none of them are.
Increasingly, I see the slippery slope fallacy being used to advocate against paying attention to or correcting very clear, observable trends.
Of course not all slopes are slippery, but I think people should be more cautious about this kind of argument. It's easy to forget that absent friction, this universe tends to preserve motion.
Slippery slope is only a fallacy when being made as an argument before it happens. At this point with privacy, we’ve already slipped down the slope, and pointing it out is just a statement of historical fact.
With a phone, I can at least make the choice whether to track myself or not (by using the phone). With a doorbell cam, now you’re involving everyone in your neighborhood. They don’t have a choice.
I have no doubt someone is going to say that those people are in a public space, but there there is a huge difference between the theoretical concept of being in public, and the actual reality of public spaces being under video surveillance 24x7.
Have you not heard that Amazon has been partnering with local law enforcement to give them access to a bunch of cameras? It’s not about just giving your data to Amazon or Google anymore.
Also, in the US, there is the Third Party Doctrine. Any data you give to a third party can be given to the government without any Fourth Amendment protections. By using these services you are giving up your Constitutional rights.