Donald I, emperor of the world.

[Rusty Nails]

A compromise might be cameras with no recording function?

I think there might have to be limited or short term recording because of the need to record stuff to confirm/translate it, e.g.menus, timetables etc.

 

[Rusty Nails]

For most applications if you made them like enormous Rocket Man era Elton John glasses, it would be fine.

Because blind/partially sighted people won't mind looking like clowns.

 

[briantrumpet]

X marks the twat.

If only someone had told me when I was younger.

 

[Pross]

I think there might have to be limited or short term recording because of the need to record stuff to confirm/translate it, e.g.menus, timetables etc.

My wife's aunt had a system about 7 or 8 years ago that would scan things and read them to her without recording. It was pretty expensive back then (we donated it to someone else when she died in the early days of the pandemic).

 

[briantrumpet]

Republican Thomas Massie is saying he'll introduce articles of impeachment against Hegseth.

I imagine that there will also be renewed efforts to get the withheld documents on Epstein & Trump asap.

 

[First Aspect]

Because blind/partially sighted people won't mind looking like clowns.

I did say most.

 

[Pblakeney]

Republican Thomas Massie is saying he'll introduce articles of impeachment against Hegseth.

I imagine that there will also be renewed efforts to get the withheld documents on Epstein & Trump asap.

I'd be surprised if they still exist, or are legible if they do.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I did say most.

So just some will look like clowns? That makes it so much better.

 

[briantrumpet]

So just some will look like clowns? That makes it so much better.

I imagine that actual clowns won't mind looking like clowns, though that might be a very small market.

 

[Psamathe]

Interesting thought. I know that at school there were strict protocols for the handling of recorded security footage (on private land too), so the fact that people can do this in public places with no control whatsoever is bonkers.

My understanding is that there are actually "controls" but nobody follows them or maybe rather they are difficult to enforce given how impossible it is to get Social Media Companies to actually do anything other than got the owners to watch their bank balances grow.
eg
Whilst

There is nothing in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that prohibits people from taking photos in a public place.

If you can identify somebody from a recording/photograph then it qualifies as "Personal Information" and thus GDPR does become relevant. If you post such a photograph on the internet eg on Social Media then you are sharing personal information.

University of Edinburgh advises

Whenever individuals can be identified by their image, data protection legislation applies. In these situations, the rights of the individuals in the collection and use of their photographs must be respected – they must be informed when an identifiable image of them will be or has been captured, and a legal basis must be found before the image is used in any way.

There is one important distinction for photography:

• The actual photography which requires a legal basis
• Publishing your photo on the internet which constitutes international data transfer and requires a safeguard

...
When taking photographs of a specific person that you might want to publish on the internet, you can use ‘legitimate interest’, ‘consent’ and ‘contractual obligation’ as your legal basis.

The ICO recommends using ‘legitimate interest’ as this is the easiest legal basis as long as that is valid and used correctly.

 

[First Aspect]

So just some will look like clowns? That makes it so much better.

I don't mind if blokes perving at the beach in the summer look like clowns.

Vloggers looking like clowns also, in my view, would not damage society.

 

[Pblakeney]

Back to the subject matter. I like this one I read today.
Iran has started regime change. In Washington.

 

[Pross]

My understanding is that there are actually "controls" but nobody follows them or maybe rather they are difficult to enforce given how impossible it is to get Social Media Companies to actually do anything other than got the owners to watch their bank balances grow.
eg
Whilst

If you can identify somebody from a recording/photograph then it qualifies as "Personal Information" and thus GDPR does become relevant. If you post such a photograph on the internet eg on Social Media then you are sharing personal information.

University of Edinburgh advises

I would suggest that is the rules being excessive. If you take an overt photo in the street of, say, a famous building which has people in you effectively can’t share it with anyone. I can understand if you are sharing it with the person as the focus.

We had this debate in work the other day on whether photos we use in reports should have the registration plates blurred out. It seems ridiculous to me that we need to go to that trouble because we’ve inadvertently captured a car going past in the normal course of a journey in public.

 

[Wobblers]

I hope you're right, but I will point you to what happened to Starmer here.

Starmer was deposed by his own party, who saw him as a liability. That's rather different to the Democrats trying to compromise with the Trump "administration" [1]. They'll probably try, and actually I'm not sure whether or not that's a good thing for them. But I doubt it will make any difference whether they do or be as obstructive as possible. Even if they do manage to strike some deal (Trump does seem to be obsessed with "deals", doesn't he?) he'll renege on it. I doubt the implications of Trump/Republicans thwarting every attempt at proper governance will be lost on those who just want some sort of functional government, and there is a significant fraction of people who want just that. Plus of course it gives them a convenient scapegoat, and doesn't everyone like a scapegoat?

So we'll see. I think the democrats will have to try hard to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, especially with the prospect of Trump becoming ever more unhinged. Narcissist that he is, he's already lashed out at the Republicans who he perceives as failing him, as witnessed by his blaming Greg Abbott for losing Texas. In other words, Trump is very much a Republican problem.


[1] Maybe we should be saying "AINO": Administration In Name Only?

 

[Psamathe]

Starmer was deposed by his own party, who saw him as a liability. That's rather different to the Democrats trying to compromise with the Trump "administration" [1]. They'll probably try, and actually I'm not sure whether or not that's a good thing for them. But I doubt it will make any difference whether they do or be as obstructive as possible. Even if they do manage to strike some deal (Trump does seem to be obsessed with "deals", doesn't he?) he'll renege on it. I doubt the implications of Trump/Republicans thwarting every attempt at proper governance will be lost on those who just want some sort of functional government, and there is a significant fraction of people who want just that. Plus of course it gives them a convenient scapegoat, and doesn't everyone like a scapegoat?

So we'll see. I think the democrats will have to try hard to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, especially with the prospect of Trump becoming ever more unhinged. Narcissist that he is, he's already lashed out at the Republicans who he perceives as failing him, as witnessed by his blaming Greg Abbott for losing Texas. In other words, Trump is very much a Republican problem.


[1] Maybe we should be saying "AINO": Administration In Name Only?

Trûmp has a fair number of weaknesses that can, if played well make him fairly manipulatable. Democrats will be well aware of his tendency to be transactional and to renege on deals which is also easy to address eg once a bill signed off by Trûmp he can't "change his mind" and can't Executive Order it away.

They'll need to be careful but Trümp's weak points are well known and obvious which makes the Democrat's job a lot easier.