Seems backward to me. Is this the slipperiest of slopes?

https://www.bespacific.com/feds-can-film-your-front-porch-for-68-days-without-a-warrant-says-court/

Feds Can Film Your Front Porch for 68 Days Without a Warrant, Says Court

Gizmodo: A federal court says your privacy is diminished due to the proliferation of video cameras throughout society. “…The federal court’s decision says that video cameras have become “ubiquitous,”  and have therefore diminished our expectations of privacy. Police officers wear body cameras now, cellphones have cameras, and many doorbells record your porch. The court isn’t wrong that cameras are everywhere. However, law enforcement has a long history of blurring the lines of privacy with modern recording technology.  Politico detailed how Ring handed over a full day’s worth of camera footage against a man’s will, in order to convict his neighbor of a crime. The network of Ring cameras also was used by law enforcement for years to obtain footage of criminals without search warrants …”

See also Hartzog, Woodrow and Selinger, Evan and Gunawan, Johanna, Privacy Nicks: How the Law Normalizes Surveillance (March 10, 2023). 101 Washington University Law Review 717 (2024), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4384541 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4384541

Is AI ever a better choice?

https://www.infodocket.com/2024/12/01/research-article-preprint-suspected-undeclared-use-of-artificial-intelligence-in-the-academic-literature-an-analysis-of-the-academ-ai-dataset/

Research Paper (Preprint): “Suspected Undeclared Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Academic Literature: An Analysis of the Academ-AI Dataset”

Since generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT became widely available, researchers have used them in the writing process. The consensus of the academic publishing community is that such usage must be declared in the published article. Academ-AI documents examples of suspected undeclared AI usage in the academic literature, discernible primarily due to the appearance in research papers of idiosyncratic verbiage characteristic of large language model (LLM)-based chatbots. This analysis of the first 500 examples collected reveals that the problem is widespread, penetrating the journals and conference proceedings of highly respected publishers. Undeclared AI seems to appear in journals with higher citation metrics and higher article processing charges (APCs), precisely those outlets that should theoretically have the resources and expertise to avoid such oversights. An extremely small minority of cases are corrected post publication, and the corrections are often insufficient to rectify the problem. The 500 examples analyzed here likely represent a small fraction of the undeclared AI present in the academic literature, much of which may be undetectable. Publishers must enforce their policies against undeclared AI usage in cases that are detectable; this is the best defense currently available to the academic publishing community against the proliferation of undisclosed AI.

Direct to Full Text Article