evenwicht

They aren’t.

Citation needed.

Definition of surveillance: ”observation of a person or group”. Cameras do that.

2

Ah, so finally you have worked out how to articulate your struggle. And it turns out to be a misunderstanding on your part. Glad I did not blow time digging through my archives and citing sources.

There is no need to prove that OEMs can’t have cameras w/out surveillance b/c I did not claim this. Bizarre idea. I only “need” to prove my own claims (and even then, only to the extent that I care to); certainly not whatever manifestation of a strawman this is that quietly emerged in your head.

Cameras ARE surveillance. You can have both together. Or neither. Or you can have surveillance w/out cameras. But you cannot have functional cameras w/out surveillance. At best, to satisfy whatever academic masterbation you are attempting, you can have cameras and isolated surveillance which is not shared upstream with the mothership and you can even have that w/out on-the-fly facial recognition, theoretically. But such discussions are orthoganol to my claims.

4

evenwicht @lemmy.sdf.org 2mo ago

Any econ 101 book will give you the remedial knowledge you lack about how corporations function and how capitalism works generally. It’s quite basic stuff. There you go.. a vague answer (go read a book) for a vague inquiry. Should be no problem w/your highly motivated posturing.

Proof that Tesla has cameras → https://web.archive.org/web/20250406045756/https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/models/en_us/GUID-682FF4A7-D083-4C95-925A-5EE3752F4865.html

I am not going to blow much time spoon feeding basic knowledge to you. Do your own homework. Come back with specific questions if you really get stuck. If you find a book covering capitalism that contradicts the principle that corps have a duty to maximise profit for the shareholders, mention the book.

6

evenwicht @lemmy.sdf.org 2mo ago

I can’t prove a negative.

You weren’t asked to.

If you have evidence of any of these claims, please share them.

Meh, no. I don’t need to make the effort to prove a dozen different things because you are too lazy to state whatever it is you specifically struggle to accept.

8

evenwicht @lemmy.sdf.org 2mo ago

Tesla makes cars with cameras. That alone makes them oppressive agents of surveillance.

No. It doesn’t. Literally all modern cars have cameras. They’re required by law, and have been for some time now.

My statement remains true despite yours. Being required by law does not cease to make them agents of surveillance. Nor does this obviate the point I was making.

You would be foolish to assume a profit-driven corporation has no intent to profit

Well, yes, but that’s not what’s happening. Businesses can be profitable without surveillance. They did it for thousands of years.

That’s not how corporations work. Corporations have a duty to their shareholders to maximise profit. To fail to do so is to violate the constitution of the corporation.

Exceptionally, there are some corporations with good causes coded into their constitution whereby profit is either impossible or not a priority. Tesla is not one of them.

Lots of companies care about privacy

Nonsense.

to the extent that their consumers care about privacy.

Not even that. Even if you have a corporation who presents itself as privacy respecting, like DuckDuckGo, in the end it is only privacy theatre in play (amid privacy scandals by DDG). It’s about perception of privacy. And that perception only relates to the patrons, not other people. A cyclist riding past a Tesla is not a Tesla customer. It’s orthoganol to Tesla’s privacy policy, even if Musk gave a shit about cyclists (when in fact Musk is outspoken against cycling infrastructure).

evenwicht @lemmy.sdf.org 2mo ago

No idea what you’re waffling on about, running a red light on a bike is very much illegal and punishable. They’re just unlikely to get caught because without a licence plates witness reports will just go nowhere.

Seems clear English is not your 1st language. Indeed I said red light running was illegal and punishable. You not only missed the nuance of my reply but in fact this is central to the thesis of the thread.

cyclists are providing one of the best arguments for facial recognition cameras at traffic lights. So good job!

No they’re not. The argument is so shitty a gov or car maker would be embarrassed to try it. They have plenty of crimes that actually matter to point to as their excuse and cover-for-action for surveillance. But if you find a surveillance pushing gov actually citing outlaw cyclists as their cause for action, please drop us a link.

1

evenwicht @lemmy.sdf.org 2mo ago

Everytime someone in my family dies, I go on a rant about the stupidity of obituaries. They are a great resource for hackers and social engineers and offer no material benefit; certainly no benefit that is reasonable in light of the risks. So I will never be in an obituary.

2

evenwicht @lemmy.sdf.org 2mo ago

I just don’t like assholes that think that traffic law doesn’t apply to them and almost all of those seem to be on bikes.

This is a matter of fact. The law is clear. I don’t think you will find a cyclist who believes the law “does not apply” to them. OTOH, the law often does not get applied (enforced) on cyclists because cops have enough sense to understand the risks, the consequences, and the worth of their labor. Rightfully so. I would like to think cops also have enough humanity to consider the injustice cyclists face, but that’s perhaps overly optimistic.

And laws adapt because of this. It used to be illegal for anyone to turn right on red. Cyclists broke that law so regularly that lawmakers decided to revisit the law, and made the wise decision to remove the right-on-red prohibition on cyclists.

evenwicht @lemmy.sdf.org 2mo ago

Ok so make your bike faster. Maybe put a motor on your cycle. I wonder what that would be called? Or, alternatively, make the car slower. That would defeat the entire purpose of the car, unless you’re Fred Flintstone.

Bingo. You’re starting to figure out the flaw in your own thinking.

Yes it does, they weren’t put there by god on the 7th day. They were put there for cars.

Nonsense. They were put there for horses. They evolved as needed for cars. Then evolved more again for trucks. Some cities have been smart enough to continue evolving but more progressively, like a Dutch city where they retroactively realised the damage done by having a huge car infrastructure - so they converted a road back to a canal for boats.

But to pretend that the origin doesn’t matter is willfully ignorant. That’s like saying “I don’t care why this sewer was put here, it shouldn’t be used for sewage. Instead we should use it as a clean tunnel system for walking our pets. I don’t care where your sewage goes, you shouldn’t be pooping in the first place.”

If you could make a good case for repurposing sewer systems for dog walking, it would still be ignorant to say it matters what history brought the sewer system. Motorists don’t get brownie points for ruining cities.

Sure, if you want absolute chaos and injuries. What do you do when two roads bike paths intersect? Just barrel through at full speed, and the biggest bike wins?

Do you think cyclists have only 2 speeds: zero and 35 km/h? That we don’t have our choice of speeds? That yielding to the right by varying speed is not a thing?

Look, you can run all the red lights you want, but expect to get killed.

Different people have different levels of skill and proficiency. Perhaps you might expect to get killed if you doubt your ability to see and avoid cars.

Claiming that the danger shouldn’t exist is selfish and conflicts with reality.

Nonsense. The danger is a man-made creation. It can be mitigated by competent governments and civil engineers.

If I drive my car onto a bike path and complain about bikes being too slow, who’s the asshole?

Again, the car driver is the asshole, of course. And so obviously so that a cop would not hesitate to enforce such a situation where an asshole motorist is endangering others more than themself.

4

evenwicht @lemmy.sdf.org 2mo ago

Well you are providing the incentive to remove that privacy! People are sick and tired off assholes on bikes just breaking traffic laws without any accountability.

Sorry to say that while cars harm cyclists, the reverse is not only untrue but in fact cyclists benefit cars. Every person who switches from a car to a bike reduces the cause of traffic jams. Motorists who are foolish enough to hate cyclists are not buying dashcams to rat out cyclists. Your crazy theory isn’t convincing.

(edit)Right-wing nutters (like Victor Orban) have enough hate for cyclists that they lobby against their own interest by lobbing against cycling paths (cutting their nose off to spite their face). Right-wing nutters aside, car lobbies and cycling lobbies are actually mutually aligned in the call for more cycling infra because motorists also want less car traffic.

2

evenwicht @lemmy.sdf.org 2mo ago

What the fuck are you talking about. The whole “share the road” mantra is that bikes and cars should use the roads equally.

“Equally” is not possible unless you make all cars the size of bicycles with the same speed constraints.

Are you suggesting that roads should only be for bikes and that cars should be banned?

I didn’t say that. Stop trying to make a strawman. But indeed, more roads should be pedestrianised. More cycling paths should be made. Public parking is an abuse of public money and should be eliminated. Less money should be wasted on cars and car infra. Personal cars plague cities due to the tyranny (and addiction) to convenience. So anything that makes cars less convenient is a good start.

Bear in mind that the only reason the roads exist in the first place is because of cars. That’s why they’re the size they are. Bike paths exist and they’re bicycle-sized.

And? Good things happen for bad reasons. It doesn’t matter why roads exist.

You could say the exact same thing from the other perspective.

Nonsense. Eliminate cyclists, and cars still must have traffic stops. But the reverse is not true: eliminate cars, and cyclists need not have traffic stops.

4

evenwicht @lemmy.sdf.org 2mo ago

Cyclists stopping for cars is an injustice because it’s the car’s existence that imposes this on cyclists -- along with Alzheimers-linked pollution risks that cyclists are exposed to (while evidence shows motorists avoid the detriment of their own cause).

So while cyclists must stop in order to cater for motorists who are self-entitled to luxury power-assisted travel, cyclists also must take a health hit for which the risks increase while they wait.

Running red lights is just a start at offsetting the injustice but it’s still not enough justice. Not even close.

1

evenwicht @lemmy.sdf.org 2mo ago

So, no stopping for pedestrians

Try cycling sometime. It’s easy to cycle behind crossing pedestrians when you’re not hogging ½ the road.

or other cyclists?

I sometimes have to coast and let my speed drop a bit, but indeed stopping for other cyclists is not a thing. But if it were, it would only be when needed as a consequence of laws of physics and only for as long as needed, not artificially imposed regardless of the existence of competing traffic due to traffic lights that are needed for cars.

7

evenwicht @lemmy.sdf.org 2mo ago

It’s attitudes like the one OP has that made it this way. I bike plenty of places and follow the damn rules, it’s not hard.

Not all cyclists are conformist boot-lickers who don’t give a shit about privacy. Some of us are cyclists for the privacy it offers.

There are plenty of idiot drivers who endanger me anyway, but at least I’m not the problem in those situations.

At least you are only a problem in terms of having respect for privacy.

10

evenwicht @lemmy.sdf.org 2mo ago

Sure but this is not one of those cases.
Plz read the thread for context. Tesla makes cars with cameras. That alone makes them oppressive agents of surveillance. (yes, surveillance is a form of oppression). The facial rec is a trivial means to add value to the data they already collect. You would be foolish to assume a profit-driven corporation has no intent to profit -- to believe Tesla gives the slightest shit about privacy and then to take that to the far-fetched extent of turning away profitable data.

1

evenwicht @lemmy.sdf.org 2mo ago

The tesla face scanning shit is pretty tinfoil hat territory

Are you suggesting that Tesla’s patent on facial recognition is a hoax?

No they’re suggesting you’re gonna get hit by a car.

Nonsense. Plz read what you are responding to before responding. Please study what “tinfoil hat” means.