Taylor Swift was able to buy her privacy at MSG. What about the rest of us? (www.ms.now)
from SunDevil@lemmy.ml to privacy@lemmy.ml on 27 Jul 00:19
https://lemmy.ml/post/50588676

Reports that Madison Square Garden temporarily shut off its facial recognition system for Swift’s wedding expose a glaring problem with how the elite wield and control mass surveillance.

#privacy

threaded - newest

RotatingParts@lemmy.ml on 27 Jul 01:16 next collapse

Not privacy related, but … another double standard is that she is against guns yet her security team was armed at her wedding.

jmp242@sopuli.xyz on 27 Jul 02:12 next collapse

Idk I think this is similar to being against exploitative capitalism but also shopping at Walmart because you need to be able to eat.

SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world on 27 Jul 02:20 next collapse

Sorry, I forgot that we all need a team of armed guards in order to exist.

Alexstarfire@lemmy.world on 27 Jul 02:53 next collapse

They didn’t have the best example. But you can’t really expect to guard against guns with knives and tasers. Sometimes you have to use what is available while fighting for change.

PapaStevesy@lemmy.world on 27 Jul 03:42 collapse

Even if you’re not a billionaire, there are plenty of consumer-grade non/less-lethal self-defense tools available, I’m sure her security could get the military-grade shit though. It would be a nice change of pace to see her actually fight for anything worthwhile, she’s so influential she could change the world overnight. All I’ve ever seen her fight for is more money.

DanceMomsSavedMe@lemmy.zip on 27 Jul 03:32 next collapse

We don’t because we aren’t millionaire musicians.

You ever seen the stalker that targeted Bjork or some of the unhinged superfan people in South Korea who stalk down KPOP members?

There’s some weird people out there man. I think if you are that famous then yes you kind of do need armed guards like that.

Especially with some of the frothing at the mouth MAGA folks out there who some of them think she’s like a plant or deep state propagandist or some other weird shit I only saw it in passing on some Facebook posts by those people.

Malyca@lemmy.zip on 27 Jul 05:02 next collapse

Swift is a billionaire

LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz on 27 Jul 10:04 next collapse

What about non-millionaire/billionaire people with stalkers? People have violent Ex’s, violent coworkers - and rarely, but still happens - violent strangers.

Poor people have lives that are threatened. Domestic abuse/murder is all too common all across the world.

So why is she more valuable?

DanceMomsSavedMe@lemmy.zip on 27 Jul 12:10 collapse

Those people can carry guns and if they can afford it then they can hire armed guards too.

I don’t make the economic rules but if you can’t afford armed security then yeah, you won’t have armed security I guess.

tazeycrazy@feddit.uk on 27 Jul 21:30 collapse

Lennon was killed by an extreme fan who thought he was being spoken to directly by Lennon though the TV. I’m sure there are an army or swifties with ai chatbots and analise all Instagram posts for clues that she loves them and needs freedom from the relationship she is in.

Malyca@lemmy.zip on 27 Jul 05:02 collapse

She does, at least she has a compelling argument for it.

SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world on 27 Jul 13:06 collapse

I’m not sure I’ve heard her argue about anything

pucker4676@lemmy.ml on 28 Jul 10:45 collapse

Exploitative capitalism. A wordier way of saying capitalism.

robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net on 27 Jul 06:39 next collapse

this really isn’t the gotcha people think it is

eager_eagle@lemmy.world on 27 Jul 14:12 collapse

I’d prefer not to have a car, but this country makes it really inconvenient to do it, so I have one. That’s not a double standard, that’s adapting to your reality. Maybe the sec team arrived to the conclusion that they wouldn’t be as effective without them in a society under the 2nd amendment.

RotatingParts@lemmy.ml on 27 Jul 21:13 collapse

It seems she was okay with the security team having guns, but in general, not for the common person. In my mind, adapting to reality (and the 2nd amendment) she should be okay with both groups having guns. I think we (you and I) hold the same position on this.

voytrekk@sopuli.xyz on 27 Jul 01:41 next collapse

Venues should not be allowed to have this level of surveillance for public events. The way the owner of MSG has uesd it is proof enough, banning people for unrelated reasons because the owner is a massive piece of shit.

echo@lemmy.today on 27 Jul 05:10 next collapse

If you have the money to spend, then probably yes.

The_Che_Banana@beehaw.org on 27 Jul 06:33 collapse

There’s a lesson here: stop being poor

unabart@sh.itjust.works on 27 Jul 05:54 next collapse

Life’s like a shit sandwich… the more bread you got, the less shit you’ll taste.

pucker4676@lemmy.ml on 27 Jul 10:23 next collapse

There’s no such thing as a good billionaire.

PierceTheBubble@lemmy.ml on 30 Jul 04:30 collapse

Great article. It touches on the primary concerns I have with modern surveillance tech, namely:

This “privacy for me, surveillance for thee” attitude feels like a perfect encapsulation of the future we’re already living in: one where wealthy elites can afford privacy, while the rest of us are forced to live in a corporate surveillance panopticon.

This concept has crossed my mind as well: privacy becoming a privilege reserved for the super-wealthy; it simply being added to luxuries the underclass should naively strive for, in exchange for their exhaustible time and energy.

AI surveillance in the hands of wealthy individuals could create opportunities for Epstein-like abusers to get away with their crimes, allowing monied interests to get dirt on politicians, law enforcement and even judges.

Wealthy individuals getting away with crimes is the most terrifying to me. Where either knowing mazes in surveillance infrastructure, or systems explicitly turning a blind eye, could create situations where: there’s no evidence placing the actual perpetrator at a crime-scene, while an innocent person, simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, is framed with evidence to support it.