Most women could have predicted that spycams in a park, run by a government in a country with known issues around women’s rights, would lead to issues.
Even governments with incredibly strict rules and indelible audit trails struggle with men in government using their access to data to stalk women. India is not a country known for these things.
While AG, he put in place, a monitoring regimen, that caught him, as Guv, using state funds to buy hookers and whatnot.
For all I know, he might have gotten away with it, if he hadn’t been using state funds.
It kinda ripped the lid off a bunch of fairly misogynistic attitudes, though. He didn’t last long, after that.
Just a view I see lacking and underrepresented in tech spaces
But if there are other things you’re referring to with that governor then definitely mention those, separately
Something very much up for debate amongst leading scholars. I - personally - think buying sex is bad, and degrading to both parties.
The Feds started poking around, and voilà. The Southern District of NY US Attorney was a big game hunter for politicians, so his goose was cooked.
Ironically, the lieutenant governor who replaced him came out swinging, disclosing that he did inhale, regularly had sex outside of his marriage, did cocaine and various other things. Lol.
Hah, how did he do?
succeeded as governor by David Paterson, a blind man... nothing says a blind governor can't embezzle funds to spend on prostitutes, but perhaps it's less common? wikip: Paterson launched a campaign for a full term as governor in the 2010 New York gubernatorial election, but he announced on February 26, 2010, that he would bow out of the race. During the final year of his administration, Paterson faced allegations of soliciting improper gifts and making false statements; he was eventually fined in excess of $62,000 for accepting free New York Yankees tickets. He was not charged with perjury.
He was succeeded as governor by
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cuomo_sexual_harassment...
seems like they developed a set of principles a while back https://wildlabs.net/sites/default/files/principles_for_the_...
But my guess is without strict enforcement of the rules with consequences this will carry on.
That's a really long/specific way of saying: wildlife cameras spying on Indian women is an instance of a more general problem.
I feel like plausible deniability (e.g. security/monitoring) is so easy that discovering and alleging wrong-doing would be met with little more than shrugging of shoulders.
it was not met with shrugs
FTA: Young men appointed as temporary forest workers shared the photo on local Whatsapp and Facebook groups to "shame the woman," Simlai said. "We broke and set fire to every camera trap we could find after the daughter of our village was humiliated in such a brazen way," one local told the researchers.
That's good news in this instance but not in the case of cameras in gyms and many other cases, unfortunately.
Unless it was a one-off error, that is the reddest of red flags.
Sadly, in addition to men, there are also a lot of women, who abuse women. (And even children.)
Why would you stop singing loudly because of cameras?
Even if their singing is bad, they're just inflicting it on someone who they don't like?
Is a "think on the children", but with women.
The fact is that people in public areas can and should expect to be filmed or appear in the background of a selfie. First because is legal, and second because is unavoidable.
Without the current "male panic", women shouldn't have a problem with appearing in the background of a low quality photo (that in most cases will show a blurred face). Men don't care about it either, and people don't wander around naked in forests typically.
Cameras can have benefits for women also. Will detect presence of wild animals in the area that could be dangerous to women; or criminal activity, like poachers, arsonists or violators. I assume that this is the real problem with the presence of cameras here. That poachers are being filmed
They aren't neither bad or good. Is just a tool. The huge majority of zoologists are normal responsible people that would delete any photo with sensitive personal information and never would filter it to internet.
The fix is to put banners on the area, but then the cameras will be stolen. Or we could also stop to study nature and let everything go to hell.
in germany i can expect the opposite because surveillance cameras in public spaces are illegal.
this is not a "think of the women" argument, but "think of the people".
Requisites:
- battery operated
- IP protection
- fast shutter (example: moving objects)
- wifi?
- night mode not important (using it in optimal conditions)
Thanks