They could have identified me, that’s the point.

We couldn’t identify the criminals because that example was before facial recognition.

You read the article but you still don’t get it.

If you would read the article, you would understand the point you’re missing.

No one recognized them because they were public figures. In this case it’s not clear how they were recognized, but in the general sense, it is clear that social media will gleefully dox randos using technology like facial recognition. Attractive security guards, people dancing, etc. Just yesterday, someone took a picture of me at the pool just for walking with messy hair.

The point the article is making is that anybody can be made a public figure now, because of technology.

Why do people want to see who comes to the door?

My brother installed one of these at his house and it makes me uncomfortable, but I know he probably feels safer and more in control by having it, and would value that over my comfort.

Then I start to gaslight myself, “why am I uncomfortable with the surveillance apparatus getting regular identifiable videos of me at a known location”?

I feel like this could backfire if lots of people have the cameras. They might be like, so what? Cameras are normal.

See it, sure. But as a society we used to have an expectation of anonymity, for better or worse.

If there was a video of you dancing funny in public, maybe your friends would recognize you, but the whole world wouldn’t know your identity and remember it forever.

Shit, my workplace couldn’t even identify the people who walked in the front door and stole stuff and walked out. The police could see their faces clearly in the security footage, but they weren’t from around here and no one knew who they were.

Society used to be like that.

Does this mean that a drop of water can’t move through air faster than the speed of sound in air?

Or that a drop of water can’t move faster than the speed of sound in water anywhere?