How about not allowing systemic use, of objects equipped with public-facing image sensors (including stationary cameras)? It is beyond worrisome, regulations advocated for, align with those introduced in the US, with regards to: drones, 3D printing, and open-source firmware running them. I’m so sick and tired of the crime and terrorism motive, and the shameless hypocrisy involved: if there’s excessive crime and terrorism, it’s probably the result of systemic failure (the wealth gap and foreign policy). All technology like this does, is suppress the underlying problems, and perpetuate a clearly dysfunctional system, that disproportionately benefits a privileged minority (including those shoveling the technology).

I don’t need accustomization to, or instruction on such systems; and I’m especially uninterested, in being fear mongered into acceptance. Instead, I’d rather live with the hypothetical, of being struck by a kamikaze drone, than the certainty of government sensors surveilling me (supposedly as a byproduct, for protection against the hypothetical), through: (swarms of) drones (patrolling the skies), high-altitude pseudo-satellites (HAPS), passive acoustic masts (mapping every micro-rotor within a kilometer), microwave point-defense pods (concealed in sidewalk bollards and street lights), Internet of Things (IoT) devices anywhere (from underground areas to cities, rural areas and even oceans), or legally wiretapped devices (possibly “social” robots).

The following dystopian lines say it all: “satellites, artificial intelligence, open-source intelligence, and real-time surveillance have transformed modern conflict zones into what is now being called the transparent battlefield, and maybe this expression is equally relevant for society in general, the transparent society”; emphasized later by: “the technology will also bring a more transparent operating environment where few things stay hidden”. But “the public must trust law enforcement to use these technologies effectively and accountably”…

(1) defund the police, (2) act surprised when crime rises, (3) respond with surveillance tech: the good ol’ problem-reaction-solution paradigm

I ran it 5 times and all IDs (dZP06FnaUjtPOYh0s6Xy, Gp4E34k89Kox5ZS0HsRr, Al0HFjDTTEOGlUasncXa, ZCfnXPFd08a2c0ZtplPT, 0UPk10WDNg6BEAElMReI) are different. Most mentioning me being a first time visitor, unlike the second uniquely being 6th time visitor. So I haven’t been able to reproduce it.

These “phony companies” could in turn be operated by state actors: as there have been physical product launches in the past, which turned out to be honey pots. Perhaps state actors, can no longer convince privacy enthusiasts (unfortunately including criminals), to fall for their honey pots, and shift efforts to tarnishing reputation instead.

has done nothing except for making people bypass it entirely

Which seems to be by design, based on similarity, to approaches taken by other governments: shifting the blame to citizens (reasonably) circumventing the legislation (creating the typical infighting), and granting further excuses to further tighten government control. Legislation as such, can only be introduced under a false pretense, or few politicians dare to be in support of such works. If introduced to “protect the children”, you can gradually shape it to effectively fulfill your interest; instead of spoiling true intentions right away.