Good find. Apparently it’s just a matter of waiting for instances to upgrade.

I’ve often wondered about the reach of crawlers. Don’t crawlers need to be seeded with links? Don’t they rely on links that are published on crawled pages? If there is no navigable path to the repo, how would a crawler find it?

Of course if a friend publishes the link, all bets are off. And I would accept that.

They aren’t.

Citation needed.

Definition of surveillance: ”observation of a person or group”. Cameras do that.

Ah, so finally you have worked out how to articulate your struggle. And it turns out to be a misunderstanding on your part. Glad I did not blow time digging through my archives and citing sources.

There is no need to prove that OEMs can’t have cameras w/out surveillance b/c I did not claim this. Bizarre idea. I only “need” to prove my own claims (and even then, only to the extent that I care to); certainly not whatever manifestation of a strawman this is that quietly emerged in your head.

Cameras ARE surveillance. You can have both together. Or neither. Or you can have surveillance w/out cameras. But you cannot have functional cameras w/out surveillance. At best, to satisfy whatever academic masterbation you are attempting, you can have cameras and isolated surveillance which is not shared upstream with the mothership and you can even have that w/out on-the-fly facial recognition, theoretically. But such discussions are orthoganol to my claims.

Any econ 101 book will give you the remedial knowledge you lack about how corporations function and how capitalism works generally. It’s quite basic stuff. There you go.. a vague answer (go read a book) for a vague inquiry. Should be no problem w/your highly motivated posturing.

Proof that Tesla has cameras → https://web.archive.org/web/20250406045756/https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/models/en_us/GUID-682FF4A7-D083-4C95-925A-5EE3752F4865.html

I am not going to blow much time spoon feeding basic knowledge to you. Do your own homework. Come back with specific questions if you really get stuck. If you find a book covering capitalism that contradicts the principle that corps have a duty to maximise profit for the shareholders, mention the book.

I can’t prove a negative.

You weren’t asked to.

If you have evidence of any of these claims, please share them.

Meh, no. I don’t need to make the effort to prove a dozen different things because you are too lazy to state whatever it is you specifically struggle to accept.

Tesla makes cars with cameras. That alone makes them oppressive agents of surveillance.

No. It doesn’t. Literally all modern cars have cameras. They’re required by law, and have been for some time now.

My statement remains true despite yours. Being required by law does not cease to make them agents of surveillance. Nor does this obviate the point I was making.

You would be foolish to assume a profit-driven corporation has no intent to profit

Well, yes, but that’s not what’s happening. Businesses can be profitable without surveillance. They did it for thousands of years.

That’s not how corporations work. Corporations have a duty to their shareholders to maximise profit. To fail to do so is to violate the constitution of the corporation.

Exceptionally, there are some corporations with good causes coded into their constitution whereby profit is either impossible or not a priority. Tesla is not one of them.

Lots of companies care about privacy

Nonsense.

to the extent that their consumers care about privacy.

Not even that. Even if you have a corporation who presents itself as privacy respecting, like DuckDuckGo, in the end it is only privacy theatre in play (amid privacy scandals by DDG). It’s about perception of privacy. And that perception only relates to the patrons, not other people. A cyclist riding past a Tesla is not a Tesla customer. It’s orthoganol to Tesla’s privacy policy, even if Musk gave a shit about cyclists (when in fact Musk is outspoken against cycling infrastructure).

No idea what you’re waffling on about, running a red light on a bike is very much illegal and punishable. They’re just unlikely to get caught because without a licence plates witness reports will just go nowhere.

Seems clear English is not your 1st language. Indeed I said red light running was illegal and punishable. You not only missed the nuance of my reply but in fact this is central to the thesis of the thread.

cyclists are providing one of the best arguments for facial recognition cameras at traffic lights. So good job!

No they’re not. The argument is so shitty a gov or car maker would be embarrassed to try it. They have plenty of crimes that actually matter to point to as their excuse and cover-for-action for surveillance. But if you find a surveillance pushing gov actually citing outlaw cyclists as their cause for action, please drop us a link.

Everytime someone in my family dies, I go on a rant about the stupidity of obituaries. They are a great resource for hackers and social engineers and offer no material benefit; certainly no benefit that is reasonable in light of the risks. So I will never be in an obituary.

I just don’t like assholes that think that traffic law doesn’t apply to them and almost all of those seem to be on bikes.

This is a matter of fact. The law is clear. I don’t think you will find a cyclist who believes the law “does not apply” to them. OTOH, the law often does not get applied (enforced) on cyclists because cops have enough sense to understand the risks, the consequences, and the worth of their labor. Rightfully so. I would like to think cops also have enough humanity to consider the injustice cyclists face, but that’s perhaps overly optimistic.

And laws adapt because of this. It used to be illegal for anyone to turn right on red. Cyclists broke that law so regularly that lawmakers decided to revisit the law, and made the wise decision to remove the right-on-red prohibition on cyclists.