> Nobody could have realised that camera traps put in the Indian forest to monitor mammals actually have a profoundly negative impact on the mental health of local women who use these spaces.
Most women could have predicted that spycams in a park, run by a government in a country with known issues around women’s rights, would lead to issues.
Even governments with incredibly strict rules and indelible audit trails struggle with men in government using their access to data to stalk women. India is not a country known for these things.
Here in NY, we had a [very short-term] governor, who used to be the Attorney General, get hoist by his own petard.
While AG, he put in place, a monitoring regimen, that caught him, as Guv, using state funds to buy hookers and whatnot.
For all I know, he might have gotten away with it, if he hadn’t been using state funds.
It kinda ripped the lid off a bunch of fairly misogynistic attitudes, though. He didn’t last long, after that.
Nah. A compliance officer at his bank filed a SAR because he was structuring wire transfers to bypass his reporting requirement. He wasn’t using state funds.
The Feds started poking around, and voilà. The Southern District of NY US Attorney was a big game hunter for politicians, so his goose was cooked.
Ironically, the lieutenant governor who replaced him came out swinging, disclosing that he did inhale, regularly had sex outside of his marriage, did cocaine and various other things. Lol.
> Ironically, the lieutenant governor who replaced him came out swinging, disclosing that he did inhale, regularly had sex outside of his marriage, did cocaine and various other things. Lol.
succeeded as governor by David Paterson, a blind man... nothing says a blind governor can't embezzle funds to spend on prostitutes, but perhaps it's less common? wikip: Paterson launched a campaign for a full term as governor in the 2010 New York gubernatorial election, but he announced on February 26, 2010, that he would bow out of the race. During the final year of his administration, Paterson faced allegations of soliciting improper gifts and making false statements; he was eventually fined in excess of $62,000 for accepting free New York Yankees tickets. He was not charged with perjury.
Consuming sex work isn’t misogynistic, by definition as it doesnt involve contempt or hate of women, sex workers have a voice too and don’t want to be marginalized by that assumption or dilution of that word
Just a view I see lacking and underrepresented in tech spaces
But if there are other things you’re referring to with that governor then definitely mention those, separately
>Consuming sex work isn’t misogynistic
Something very much up for debate amongst leading scholars. I - personally - think buying sex is bad, and degrading to both parties.
>Something very much up for debate amongst leading scholars
Who are those "leading scholars" and what gives them authority to be the judge what consenting adults do with their body for a living or for entertainment?
[dead]
[deleted]
This excuse has been also used in Swedden to forbid trail cameras in public areas unless the government emit a permit. People has been sued because a woman toke a dump in front of the camera. Is unclear to me if this was deliberated or not.
Is a "think on the children", but with women.
The fact is that people in public areas can and should expect to be filmed or appear in the background of a selfie. First because is legal, and second because is unavoidable.
Without the current "male panic", women shouldn't have a problem with appearing in the background of a low quality photo (that in most cases will show a blurred face). Men don't care about it either, and people don't wander around naked in forests typically.
Cameras can have benefits for women also. Will detect presence of wild animals in the area that could be dangerous to women; or criminal activity, like poachers, arsonists or violators. I assume that this is the real problem with the presence of cameras here. That poachers are being filmed
They aren't neither bad or good. Is just a tool. The huge majority of zoologists are normal responsible people that would delete any photo with sensitive personal information and never would filter it to internet.
The fix is to put banners on the area, but then the cameras will be stolen. Or we could also stop to study nature and let everything go to hell.
> The fact is that people in public areas can and should expect to be filmed
Says who? I certainly don't agree with this. It's a societal decision whether or not we want or need video surveillance, which is very different from some random dude filming me with his smartphone. Evidence on whether or not video surveillance is _effective_ is also, at the very least, inconclusive [1] and highly depends on location.
So no, I don't think people should expect to be filmed by their government or its contractors at all, _especially_ not in public places :)
The fact is that people in public areas can and should expect to be filmed
in germany i can expect the opposite because surveillance cameras in public spaces are illegal.
this is not a "think of the women" argument, but "think of the people".
To be very clear, this only applies to private individuals setting up cameras. The government is very much able to surveil the population to its hearts content [1] (link German). There are plenty of "security" cameras around Berlin, at least.
Seems a lot of modern tech is (ab)used for the purpose of perving. I recently visited a gym which seemed very social media oriented (not dissimilar to most gyms tbh), but as days went by I gathered the impression something weird was going on. I ended up suspecting (but having absolutely no evidence) that the owner or staff was using the cameras to spy on members. Further oddities exist in the reviews for the place, which includes staff walking into the change rooms (of the opposite sex) with naked people there.
That's a really long/specific way of saying: wildlife cameras spying on Indian women is an instance of a more general problem.
I feel like plausible deniability (e.g. security/monitoring) is so easy that discovering and alleging wrong-doing would be met with little more than shrugging of shoulders.
>I feel like plausible deniability...is so easy that discovering and alleging wrong-doing would be met with little more than shrugging of shoulders.
it was not met with shrugs
FTA: Young men appointed as temporary forest workers shared the photo on local Whatsapp and Facebook groups to "shame the woman," Simlai said. "We broke and set fire to every camera trap we could find after the daughter of our village was humiliated in such a brazen way," one local told the researchers.
> it was not met with shrugs
That's good news in this instance but not in the case of cameras in gyms and many other cases, unfortunately.
>>Further oddities exist in the reviews for the place, which includes staff walking into the change rooms (of the opposite sex) with naked people there.
Unless it was a one-off error, that is the reddest of red flags.
What solution do you propose for private businesses? Having cameras is sensible, if not a must. People are abusive, burglars break in, staff steal, etc.
I don't have a solution (and would be mindful any 'solution' could be unreasonably burdensome, unenforceable, or have unintended consequences). I just point out that the past couple of decades have seen a dramatic change how easy it is for people to be spied on, often in sensitive environments and unbeknown to them.
But my guess is without strict enforcement of the rules with consequences this will carry on.
That article references this University of Cambridge study.
they should put the women in charge of the cameras and wildlife monitoring
Not as simple as that.
Sadly, in addition to men, there are also a lot of women, who abuse women. (And even children.)
Unfortunately I think that access to all kind of IP cameras is too easy. Normal people mostly don't care to install, don't bother to deal with setting up the recording infrastructure. Creeps, psychos, delusional people go wild with them, including pointing camera at neighbour doors, windows, garages in residential areas. Yes, you can tell them to turn the camera away but they are delusional so discussion rarely makes sense. Some people draw this sick perverted satisfaction in recording their neighbour and sometimes only violence works as an argument.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
they are not just escaping from the men at home. they're actively having illicit affairs away from their men at home, in the privacy of the forest..
Perhaps there's an inherent conflict between using the forest as a source of resources for the nearby village, and using it as a storage space for tigers.
That same forest without the cameras didn't exhibit that particular kind of conflict. I suppose the problem is in behavior of particular humans here, not of tigers, the forest, or even the cameras.
The forest is for all to use and not exploit
I suppose that this is not the right thread to ask about what devices would you use outdoor, but I'll try anyway...
Requisites:
- battery operated
- IP protection
- fast shutter (example: moving objects)
- wifi?
- night mode not important (using it in optimal conditions)
Thanks
> they feel watched and inhibited by camera traps, so talk and sing much more quietly.
Why would you stop singing loudly because of cameras?
Even if their singing is bad, they're just inflicting it on someone who they don't like?
If only people would not sing and dance when the tiktok camera is on.
> Nobody could have realised that camera traps put in the Indian forest to monitor mammals actually have a profoundly negative impact on the mental health of local women who use these spaces.
Most women could have predicted that spycams in a park, run by a government in a country with known issues around women’s rights, would lead to issues.
Even governments with incredibly strict rules and indelible audit trails struggle with men in government using their access to data to stalk women. India is not a country known for these things.
Here in NY, we had a [very short-term] governor, who used to be the Attorney General, get hoist by his own petard.
While AG, he put in place, a monitoring regimen, that caught him, as Guv, using state funds to buy hookers and whatnot.
For all I know, he might have gotten away with it, if he hadn’t been using state funds.
It kinda ripped the lid off a bunch of fairly misogynistic attitudes, though. He didn’t last long, after that.
Nah. A compliance officer at his bank filed a SAR because he was structuring wire transfers to bypass his reporting requirement. He wasn’t using state funds.
The Feds started poking around, and voilà. The Southern District of NY US Attorney was a big game hunter for politicians, so his goose was cooked.
Ironically, the lieutenant governor who replaced him came out swinging, disclosing that he did inhale, regularly had sex outside of his marriage, did cocaine and various other things. Lol.
> Ironically, the lieutenant governor who replaced him came out swinging, disclosing that he did inhale, regularly had sex outside of his marriage, did cocaine and various other things. Lol.
Hah, how did he do?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_sca...
succeeded as governor by David Paterson, a blind man... nothing says a blind governor can't embezzle funds to spend on prostitutes, but perhaps it's less common? wikip: Paterson launched a campaign for a full term as governor in the 2010 New York gubernatorial election, but he announced on February 26, 2010, that he would bow out of the race. During the final year of his administration, Paterson faced allegations of soliciting improper gifts and making false statements; he was eventually fined in excess of $62,000 for accepting free New York Yankees tickets. He was not charged with perjury.
He was succeeded as governor by
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cuomo_sexual_harassment...
Consuming sex work isn’t misogynistic, by definition as it doesnt involve contempt or hate of women, sex workers have a voice too and don’t want to be marginalized by that assumption or dilution of that word
Just a view I see lacking and underrepresented in tech spaces
But if there are other things you’re referring to with that governor then definitely mention those, separately
>Consuming sex work isn’t misogynistic
Something very much up for debate amongst leading scholars. I - personally - think buying sex is bad, and degrading to both parties.
>Something very much up for debate amongst leading scholars
Who are those "leading scholars" and what gives them authority to be the judge what consenting adults do with their body for a living or for entertainment?
[dead]
This excuse has been also used in Swedden to forbid trail cameras in public areas unless the government emit a permit. People has been sued because a woman toke a dump in front of the camera. Is unclear to me if this was deliberated or not.
Is a "think on the children", but with women.
The fact is that people in public areas can and should expect to be filmed or appear in the background of a selfie. First because is legal, and second because is unavoidable.
Without the current "male panic", women shouldn't have a problem with appearing in the background of a low quality photo (that in most cases will show a blurred face). Men don't care about it either, and people don't wander around naked in forests typically.
Cameras can have benefits for women also. Will detect presence of wild animals in the area that could be dangerous to women; or criminal activity, like poachers, arsonists or violators. I assume that this is the real problem with the presence of cameras here. That poachers are being filmed
They aren't neither bad or good. Is just a tool. The huge majority of zoologists are normal responsible people that would delete any photo with sensitive personal information and never would filter it to internet.
The fix is to put banners on the area, but then the cameras will be stolen. Or we could also stop to study nature and let everything go to hell.
> The fact is that people in public areas can and should expect to be filmed
Says who? I certainly don't agree with this. It's a societal decision whether or not we want or need video surveillance, which is very different from some random dude filming me with his smartphone. Evidence on whether or not video surveillance is _effective_ is also, at the very least, inconclusive [1] and highly depends on location.
So no, I don't think people should expect to be filmed by their government or its contractors at all, _especially_ not in public places :)
[1]: https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/surv...
The fact is that people in public areas can and should expect to be filmed
in germany i can expect the opposite because surveillance cameras in public spaces are illegal.
this is not a "think of the women" argument, but "think of the people".
To be very clear, this only applies to private individuals setting up cameras. The government is very much able to surveil the population to its hearts content [1] (link German). There are plenty of "security" cameras around Berlin, at least.
[1]: https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/507980/bf8a67c2440522...
Seems a lot of modern tech is (ab)used for the purpose of perving. I recently visited a gym which seemed very social media oriented (not dissimilar to most gyms tbh), but as days went by I gathered the impression something weird was going on. I ended up suspecting (but having absolutely no evidence) that the owner or staff was using the cameras to spy on members. Further oddities exist in the reviews for the place, which includes staff walking into the change rooms (of the opposite sex) with naked people there.
That's a really long/specific way of saying: wildlife cameras spying on Indian women is an instance of a more general problem.
I feel like plausible deniability (e.g. security/monitoring) is so easy that discovering and alleging wrong-doing would be met with little more than shrugging of shoulders.
>I feel like plausible deniability...is so easy that discovering and alleging wrong-doing would be met with little more than shrugging of shoulders.
it was not met with shrugs
FTA: Young men appointed as temporary forest workers shared the photo on local Whatsapp and Facebook groups to "shame the woman," Simlai said. "We broke and set fire to every camera trap we could find after the daughter of our village was humiliated in such a brazen way," one local told the researchers.
> it was not met with shrugs
That's good news in this instance but not in the case of cameras in gyms and many other cases, unfortunately.
>>Further oddities exist in the reviews for the place, which includes staff walking into the change rooms (of the opposite sex) with naked people there.
Unless it was a one-off error, that is the reddest of red flags.
What solution do you propose for private businesses? Having cameras is sensible, if not a must. People are abusive, burglars break in, staff steal, etc.
I don't have a solution (and would be mindful any 'solution' could be unreasonably burdensome, unenforceable, or have unintended consequences). I just point out that the past couple of decades have seen a dramatic change how easy it is for people to be spied on, often in sensitive environments and unbeknown to them.
another article with some other details https://www.enca.com/opinion/wildlife-monitoring-tech-used-h...
seems like they developed a set of principles a while back https://wildlabs.net/sites/default/files/principles_for_the_...
But my guess is without strict enforcement of the rules with consequences this will carry on.
That article references this University of Cambridge study.
they should put the women in charge of the cameras and wildlife monitoring
Not as simple as that.
Sadly, in addition to men, there are also a lot of women, who abuse women. (And even children.)
Unfortunately I think that access to all kind of IP cameras is too easy. Normal people mostly don't care to install, don't bother to deal with setting up the recording infrastructure. Creeps, psychos, delusional people go wild with them, including pointing camera at neighbour doors, windows, garages in residential areas. Yes, you can tell them to turn the camera away but they are delusional so discussion rarely makes sense. Some people draw this sick perverted satisfaction in recording their neighbour and sometimes only violence works as an argument.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
they are not just escaping from the men at home. they're actively having illicit affairs away from their men at home, in the privacy of the forest..
Perhaps there's an inherent conflict between using the forest as a source of resources for the nearby village, and using it as a storage space for tigers.
That same forest without the cameras didn't exhibit that particular kind of conflict. I suppose the problem is in behavior of particular humans here, not of tigers, the forest, or even the cameras.
The forest is for all to use and not exploit
I suppose that this is not the right thread to ask about what devices would you use outdoor, but I'll try anyway...
Requisites:
- battery operated
- IP protection
- fast shutter (example: moving objects)
- wifi?
- night mode not important (using it in optimal conditions)
Thanks
> they feel watched and inhibited by camera traps, so talk and sing much more quietly.
Why would you stop singing loudly because of cameras?
Even if their singing is bad, they're just inflicting it on someone who they don't like?
If only people would not sing and dance when the tiktok camera is on.