PierceTheBubble

Interesting, in what country is this? And is it in specific areas (like retail for example), or implemented more broadly?

Same over here, with local chains increasingly forced to shut their doors (primarily as a result of the COVID pandemic, and the various developments ever since). And I completely agree, for most people it's physically an unnoticeable change, but the change from: local, short-term, manual systems, to digitally transferable, long term, and automated ones, makes all the difference.

I'm quite confident most large chains were somewhat forced to have modern, GDPR-compliant systems in place (like Genetec for instance): undoubtedly allowing for integration of such analytics tools. And apart from that, they've had trackers in their carts (hidden in the locking-chain, or wheel-break assemblies) for as long as I can remember, and likely track user-location through app-use, or dedicated scanners too (for scanning products before you place them inside your cart); so I'm quite positive they utilize surveillance systems for that too.

Oh, did you want to opt out? Sure! You can. All you got to do is stop eating food!

I would just love to see those, that claim to be human, which are knowingly in support of these systems, try to justify the ethical ramifications in that statement alone. Which is "just" restricted to grocery shopping for now, but if the current trend continues, you'll effectively become a prisoner to your own home. And quite rapidly so, if Europol's ambitions to protect citizens from hypothetical adversary (kamikaze) drones, by use of drone swarms, atmospheric satellites and microphone meshes, becomes reality.

It's an insane timeline we're living in, and it's so easy to give up all faith; but perhaps that is exactly what they want us to do. For us to feel powerless, and believing we are incapable of making a relevant change. I share the same ambitions as you, and I believe most human beings do naturally; but it's becoming increasingly difficult when you have principles to stick by. I've already experienced this by transitioning away from big-tech platforms, and I would absolutely hate this translating into the physical world.

Surveillance surrounding car infrastructure is the most notable currently, but every larger public transportation hub has cameras all over too, together with on-board cameras in pubic transit vehicles, which are monitored in real time (despite moving around constantly). Perhaps you could give me a generalized description of your whereabouts and your activity, so I have a little bit more context on your surroundings. And yes, like I mentioned, it's technically not allowed to have private cameras facing the public space, but without enforcement, you might as well not have it (or actually incentivizes people to hide them).

I'm quite interested in your experience in Prague, and would love to hear more about it. From your description it seems cameras in Prague are very apparent, which I consider to be a good thing. Whereas in The Netherlands surveillance systems are often installed to be unobtrusive; including those installed by authorities or businesses (which are typically recording the store's entrance; and as a "by-product" the public space; and dome-style cameras are increasingly placed in public retail areas too: mounted (typically in groups) on poles, or to exterior of buildings).

A lot of ALPRs are well hidden here, and not uniformly recognizable (other than: being a fixed box-type camera, angled to capture the license plate (mostly the front: as to be able to capture the driver as well), and typically having an array of IR LEDs in or around the camera-body: lighting up the license plate). But as of recently, the national police has installed a mobile ALPR unit on my return-trip, and I've found myself in somewhat a similar situation to yours. Thankfully, they aren't typically placed within residential areas (at least not outside of cities, which often do have pedestrianized areas or environmental zones, only permitted vehicles are allowed to enter); but I'm sure they'll find a creative excuse for it in the near future.

I've tried taking a detour once, but noticed cameras above a bridge, that tick most of the boxes for being an ALPR, so it seemed to have proved fruitless (despite requiring me to pass through pedestrianized areas: slowing me down significantly). Cameras appear to be placed with care, seemingly using waterways as perimeters: forcing vehicles to drive over a bridge, underneath an aqueduct, or through a tunnel. Besides the initially mentioned ALPRs at gas stations (as you're forced to fuel up periodically), and parking areas or other endpoints (as you're forced to park your vehicle somewhere). It's honestly quite clever, especially when you can potentially narrow down activity using consumer-grade or business surveillance systems.

Are you using the editor of openstreetmap.org (osm.org), or are you using some sort of app or alternative editor?

It always takes a few minutes for the map to render the updates (and often requires you to clear the cache: on the browser at least). For the routing to take the new path into consideration, it usually takes about a day or something, so I wouldn't be waiting for that; just try again tomorrow and it should work. ;)

Because there's no routable path there, and if there's no indication of such a path being there, it should not be mapped. There's cases of informal paths @roux2scour@jlai.lu's picture describes, and may be tagged with "informal=yes". Other than that, I'm not aware of any routing services, which would behave like you'd want them to. The path of the starting point also seems raised (as being on a hill), compared to the endpoint; so I'm not sure how desirable this particular case would be, even if it were to be supported.

When I used it on GrapheneOS, it was to ensure untrusted apps (especially banking apps requiring Google Play Services) no longer remaining active after using them; but if you never close the work profile, they indeed remain active. But it's a good measure regardless: to ensure you don't accidentally give WhatsApp or whatever, permission to personal media; even if it means added inconvenience (which is the most common trade-off with privacy).

(1) Offer a solution which exacerbates bot-traffic on the internet, (2) legitimize the need for verification of users as a result, (3) offer the most privacy-invasive "solution" to the "problem" imaginable: problem(1)-reaction(2)-solution(3)... every parasite's favorite paradigm :)

I would say the feature is quite easily avoidable, as it only seems to require one manual visit, for it to show in the suggestions; which I believe are sorted based on interactions with pages (so just interact more with pages, you want to be suggested more strongly). I would personally advise against using the feature, primarily because it ties all browsers, on multiple separate devices, to a common Mozilla account. So why broaden your attack surface, for advantages easily reproduced manually? Is the little bit of added convenience, worth the (potential) trade-off?

I'm a European, and yet I wrote this; but I would agree many people (regardless of whether or not European) have progressively been accustomed, to having their personal identify tied to their devices (often for the sake of convenience, or out of necessity: the uncalled-for Two Factor Authentication (2FA) applications, for accessing government or work-related services, being an example), and I've not been an exception to that rule.

For me these were limited to applications, typically where a higher degree of security is expected: banking applications, the before mentioned 2FA applications, government mailbox applications, etc. But I've also once sent, a nearly fully redacted copy of my driver's license to YouTube, in order to listen to music with naughty artwork (which I already believed to be ridiculous at the time, but gave into nevertheless).

Currently I would never let such applications near devices for general use, and it wouldn't even cross my mind, to ever send any signal that signifies I'm not, in fact, a child, and shouldn't be treated as such; ultimately so abusive services are green-lit to surveil me as an adult, instead of having to be more conservative (as data collection on children is typically more strict: for whatever reason... instead of people, regardless of age, being treated with dignity).

So no, not everybody has applications on their device, which link to, or directly store one's personal identity. I rarely have to interact with financial or government services, and have zero interest, in being required to do so in order to access "age-restricted" content online. I like my pseudo-anonymity, and do not at all, trust a government application, which links this pseudo-anonymous activity to my personal identity.

Welp, this was bound to happen, wasn't it? I'm pretty sure they're referring to this application, which I stumbled upon a while back. If I remember correctly, the app "allows" (or implicitly forces) the user to store a government issued identity: able to attest to an age-restricted website, whether or not the user is of age.

It does this, supposedly by "just" sharing an age-bracket with the website; but here's the kicker: the Union, in its generosity, has granted their citizens an in-app option, to withdraw this signal from the websites it has been provided to. What this means in practice, is the app storing one's government-issued identify, also ties back to every account requiring "age-verification"...

So now, every device containing the app, has the owner's government-issued identify on it, together with connections to every age-restricted service. And considering the apps are maintained by the Union, or member states (through their own implementations), creating a backdoor to the application's contents... I mean to "observe app usage", would be absolutely trivial.

Again, I've read it a while back, so some things might've changed, and my memory might be spotty; but I'm quite sure it's along the lines I've described.