It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by XeroOne
What law? There's cameras everywhere and only thing that might apply is secretly filming. Having the device in the smack middle of his head kinda eliminates that.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Gauss
Damn! If McDonalds employees respond this violently, imagine how cops are going to respond! Get pulled over while wearing one of those things, and you are in for some real trouble!
I don't see how a boycott of McDonalds makes any sense though? The 3 perpetrators ought to be fired and have assault charges pressed, but the corporation really isn't at fault is it?
The basic principles of data protection in the EU are:
- For all data collected there should be a stated purpose
- Information collected by an individual cannot be disclosed to other organizations of individuals unless authorized by law or by consent of the individual
- Records kept on an individual should be accurate and up to date
- There should be mechanisms for individuals to review data about them, to ensure accuracy. This may include periodic reporting
- Data should be deleted when it is no longer needed for the stated purpose
- Transmission of personal information to locations where "equivalent" personal data protection cannot be assured is prohibited
- Some data is too sensitive to be collected, unless there are extreme circumstances (e.g., sexual orientation, religion)
Sousveillance refers to the recording of an activity by a participant in the activity typically by way of small wearable or portable personal technologies. Sousveillance has also been described as "inverse surveillance", based on the word surveillance and substituting the prefix sous, "from below". While surveillance and sousveillance both generally refer to visual monitoring, the terms also denote other forms of monitoring such as audio surveillance or sousveillance. In the audio sense (e.g. recording of phone conversations) sousveillance is referred to as "one party consent". Inverse surveillance is a subset of sousveillance with a particular emphasis on the "watchful vigilance from underneath" and a form of surveillance inquiry or legal protection involving the recording, monitoring, study, or analysis of surveillance systems, proponents of surveillance, and possibly also recordings of authority figures and their actions. Inverse surveillance is typically an activity undertaken by those who are generally the subject of surveillance, and may thus be thought of as a form of ethnography or ethnomethodology study (i.e. an analysis of the surveilled from the perspective of a participant in a society under surveillance). Sousveillance typically involves community-based recording from first person perspectives, without necessarily involving any specific political agenda, whereas inverse-surveillance is a form of sousveillance that is typically directed at, or used to collect data to analyze or study, surveillance or its proponents (e.g., the actions of police or protestors at a protest rally).
Equiveillance is a state of equilibrium, or a desire to attain a state of equilibrium, between surveillance and sousveillance. It is sometimes confused with transparency. This balance (equilibrium) allows the individual to construct their own case from evidence they gather themselves, rather than merely having access to surveillance data that could possibly incriminate them. Sousveillance, in addition to transparency, can be used to preserve the contextual integrity of surveillance data. For example, a lifelong capture of personal experience could provide "best evidence" over external surveillance data, to prevent the surveillance-only data from being taken out of context.
McDonald's claims employees didn't assault 'cyborg'
In response to a storm of controversy surrounding its treatment of Human Cyborg Steve Mann, McDonald's has issued a statement, claiming that it has investigated the incident and determined that it "did not involve a physical altercation" when the University of Toronto Professor and father of wearable computing was ejected from one of its Paris restaurants.
Originally posted by Blackjack Baby
reply to post by CrimsonMoon
So, using that logic, if YOU ever walk into any business, church, school, store, etc., with a cell phone that has a camera, whether recording or not.....they have the right to assault YOUR ass, correct? How about your child? Fair game?
Well that would actually be how McD would find it.
Even if they know they were in the wrong they would try to issue a press release saying they did nothing wrong.
Companies do it all the time, issue a press release that is 100% bull in an attempt to quite the incident down.
As long as the public isn't looking at them it allows them to settle for less.
If that doesn't work they switch to the public apology.
Companies alwasye deny wrong doing at first though, it works to keep the settlement down sometimes.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
Eeh... that has nothing to do with surveillance. By that standard any photographer would too.