UK smart glasses ban for sex offenders gains support
cybernews.com
UK Liberal Democrats urge a smart glasses ban for sex offenders over covert filming, but advocates question enforcement. See what the debate reveals
  • TWeaK@lemmy.todayEnglish
    90·
    7 days ago

    “Upload your ID for every transaction to prove you’re not a sex offender”.

      • huey_m@piefed.socialEnglish
        19·
        6 days ago

        Either we believe in giving people the chance to become functioning citizens of society again or we don’t. I’d argue the “don’t” doesn’t seem to work out too well for the Americans. Europe, meanwhile taking the former attitude, has far better recidivism rates.

        • Cypher@aussie.zoneEnglish
          1·
          6 days ago

          https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235223000867

          Given the recidivism rates in even the best performing countries is so high I disagree.

          Denmark, Finland and Norway have similar two year conviction rates when accounting for other factors.

          20-30% of sexual predators will offend again AND be caught within two years. Given the delays in reporting sexual abuse and the general lack of reporting to start with this is remarkably high.

          Given the risk these predators pose to innocent people they shouldn’t be trusted nor afforded the full rights available to ordinary citizens.

          • huey_m@piefed.socialEnglish
            16·
            6 days ago

            20-30% of sexual predators will offend again AND be caught within two years.

            So, do I understand that you’re willing to enact measures based on a presumption of recidivism despite 70+% not doing so according to the research you’re citing?

            I don’t agree that it’s morally right to punish a criminal based on the assumption they will repeat offend when the research indicates a majority doesn’t. My conclusion from that research would be better methods of correcting the behavior and verifying compliance are probably necessary. Not group punishment.

      • TWeaK@lemmy.todayEnglish
        1·
        2 days ago

        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.

          • TWeaK@lemmy.todayEnglish
            1·
            1 hour ago

            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.