• M0oP0o@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    There is also a record of where I live, my height, eye colour and a whole list of things. People will still be able to find me on my bike easier then in my car since I can’t be that far from home on it.

    You assume we all live in cities, we don’t. I like how my town is set up and is walking and bike friendly, but still most drive. This post was about privacy but you got on the ol’ soapbox about mass transit. Do you really think getting on a train/bus/tram you are not being/can not be tracked?

    Leave your city, spread out and enjoy a bit of nature.

    • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      You can be tracked with facial recognition, etc. but not in the same way or with the ease of a car as demonstrated in the article so I think that my point is relevant to the article. Sure some states ban or don’t have traffic cameras, but in Ohio specifically, we see that a better intercity transit system could be better for privacy.

      I already mentioned that sure, mass transit doesn’t work as well in rural and remote areas. Clarifying my point on that: planning cities for more density, more walkability and car free travel is good for country people outside of those cities, because it keeps the suburbs from sprawling out into the countryside. These exurbs take up what could have been useful farmland with people who are just LARPing country life and spend 4 hours every day travelling to and from their job that was in the city anyway.

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Facial recognition needs a camera. Common but not everywhere.

        The issue is police not respecting privacy at all, this does not change when on a bus.