343
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2026
343 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
88491 readers
4387 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This is both a fitting punishment and a nightmare from a privacy perspective
...and a great security/relief for victims. I'm a vivid apologetic for privacy and security, but this seems like an acceptable thing.
People seem to be fine to be transparent and 24/7 surveilleid with their phones. Some even seem to be fine to install doorcams from US-bigtech or spy-devices that can switch on a light. Heck, they even pay for those!
This at least is a vers useful application of privacy invasion.
yeah, not us
Yeah, assuming courts take the rights of the accused seriously it could be a win win, especially awaiting trial and during reintegration after prison. More safety and security for the victim and less need for more restrictive measures for the accused/released. It could easily be the difference between being stuck in jail for months and being granted bail.
The danger of false-positives is surely looming here, but I can't really criticize it while having no better, more flawless, solutions.
One thing to eradicate would be the social stigma of just being accused of something. Which not always means one is guilty of the accusation. We should treat those equal to others until their guilt is proven, if possible.
Copy-paste from another comment I did:
Ok, but consider the falsely accused who may be stuck in jail awaiting trial. Yes, this is absolutely a burden on the accused, but it's a significantly lighter burden than other means of ensuring safety for the accuser.
It definitely should be used with caution and as part of an attempt to find a balance between the needs of the accused and accuser. But fortunately that seems to be the case at the moment.
Yeah, and I hope it stays that way.
Well, if someone is falsefully labeled a stalker, then what happens? He won't come near.
Also, as said, the chance this stalker is already fine with being tracked all around by every device he owns, is probably near 100, so who cares?
Copy-paste because it's essentially the same response:
But also:
Imagine that person works, lives or has something to do regularly there (i.e., medical checkouts, or accountability stuff, or legal stuff, idk). It's a huge problem if it's misused.
And I'm not even against the victims, as almost everyone here thinks that I am because of the fact that I think this is a bit problematic. I just think that a better solution should be developed.
I'm with you that it isn't perfect. I also don't assume malicious intent from you.
But (probably depending a lot on location) here nothing is done to protect victims. I work for free in a shelter where abused people end up, and the impotence they face is maddening. Unless your stalker viciously attacks or even kills you, nothing can and will be done.
Sure, you're right, if the accused stalker is no stalker at all, every system fails. But that applies to everything in the justice-system. We can never ever be 100% sure. Countless people were executed worldwide just to later learn they were innocent.
BUT I would bet that the amount of false-positives is much smaller than the amount of true positives. So maybe 50 victims is helped, 1 innocent non-stalker pays a hefty price. Numbers pulled outta my arse, but provably not too far off.
Question is, better a not perfect system or none at all? Better to protect 2 victims or protect 1 innocent? Ideally both, but also near impossible.
It is also a very thin veil here. A stalker, by definition, hasn't done anything really solid criminal YET. But the victim is in real danger. Where to draw the line and how to proove being followed (or not following someone)?
Yeah, these are really hard and though problems.
I usually feel very depressed when I think about it because I do not like the idea that other people have to suffer in that way (wether it is a victim of harassment or abuse, or one of false allegations).
I would argue, however, that false positives are not so low. Especially when there are so many malicious incentives (even if they are not intentional on the part of those who plan, develop or approve this type of measure) to do that, and there are also too many people who are twisted in the world. Sometimes I start to think about why we had to touch such a difficult world, when I realize things like that. The same goes for false negatives, though.
I'm with you here. It is depressing. As most matters that kinda involve our species. And there rarely are absolute solutions. We mostly just approximate a good solution and rarely border perfection.
Sure, false positives might be higher than I made them up, but most likely still lower than true positivis. And yes, even one life-destroying false-positive makes the whole system questionable. Is one person worth 10 others? Or 5? Or even 2?
If it is the best idea we currently have, I'd side with Spock (the many vs the few), but am not really satisfied. My high demand for exact justice is rarely sated 😞
You know what? I'm OK with a panopticon specifically for convicted stalkers. I realize the potential for a slippery slope, but I think the risk is worth it in this one case.
It wont stay confined to stalkers, it'll start being used for poor people in general.
Trangressions like being late to work will be held against you. You know they will.
Don't know about you, but I'm already reprimanded if I'm late for work, whether they're tracking my real time location or not.
Soo, your line of thought says that we are all gonna gef an ankle monitor? At that point i doubt the app is the kickstarter of the problem...
You want your SNAP? Your EBT card? Put on the bracelet.
That's how it'll get deployed.
As if GM isn't telling the highest bidder where your car is (and how much you owe on it).
The article says suspects, not convicts.
And all this means is they'll be limited to online stalking.
then you'll realize the even bigger slippery slope when you reread the article and discover it is for suspected stalkers
It only shows their location within a certain range.
And considering that this is a punishment for violating someone else's privacy I can get behind this.
Living on Earth is a nightmare from a privacy perspective.
They have space binoculars pointed at you & AI is allowing them to transcribe everything you say into words even they can understand
How short will Orswell, Asimov, Huxley or Bradbury be...
Aldous would be hunched over from perspective & the weight of understanding.
George is standing tall with a trail of aspiring writers behind him.
Issac is hiding in a cave, pondering the essence of technology.
Ray is floating in a vacuum of space, imagining the concept of oxygen.
All are exactly the same height, 1 book tall. Unless you are counting their bones, which are likely mostly brittle or ash.
Brilliant!