- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/51620160
I love how they put a pic of “Epstein File Mark” in the article ;)
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/51620160
I love how they put a pic of “Epstein File Mark” in the article ;)
if u cared about privacy y would u buy mr ihateprivacy glasses???
Hot take, but the invasion of privacy only actually occurs when someone publishes the recording. Otherwise, making a personal recording of what someone can see or hear is no more invasive than them being there.
You can’t claim an expectation of privacy against someone when you’re stood in the same room with them.
im guessing every recording is shared to meta no matter the persons intention or what they do
its meta
That’s an interesting argument, however it probably wouldn’t go that far.
Taking it back to retro interpretations, sharing your photo with meta is basically the same as sharing your photo with a print company that takes and processes your negatives. They’re acting on your behalf in a limited scope, so sharing with them is the same as you doing it all yourself.
However it maybe comes back into play when that scope isn’t limited, as Meta require in their terms of service. It doesn’t matter what individuals say to Meta regarding their data, their prohibition is superseded by other users, who agree that they have permission to share other people’s information with Meta.
Meta isn’t breaking privacy laws - you are.