How can a person be concerned about their privacy in a public space? That's why they call it public hmm?
Also why is a Senator painting local police like they are some kind of creepy stocker?
Further, there seems to be a lot of fear by the administration to try and circumvent the publics' surveillance of public areas. What kind of liabilities are they trying to mitigate people from capturing?
And lastly, how many of us believe the US government actually cares about our privacy given all the illegal surveillance conducted by them on innocent Americans?
Could it possibly be now that the tables are turned and the publics' surveillance of public places put criminals (including corrupted politicians) at risk is the reason this subject keeps coming up?
How delighted I am to see the public taking control of what is rightfully theirs.

Windows CE was a mobile operating system long before Android and IOS. What happened? Was it greed and short sightedness? Maybe taking some responsibility for losing the public's trust and owning your mistakes instead of trying to justify your failures by blaming other circumstances, you might have grown as a person and your company along with it.

Its up to the government to be responsible to the citizens regarding the laws they enacted. Its up to the citizens to hold the politicians accountable. And its up to the author of an article to be responsible to convey a clear intention of their argument, with the title setting precedence of that argument.

And rightfully so.
The same could be said about eye witness accounts, and maybe the cameras exonerate you in a circumstance you'd otherwise be found guilty. Especially if you were a minority with police prejudice, or a criminal background.
In any crime the expectation is a proper investigation, and not the sole reliance on circumstantial evidence. Additionally, if I was captured on camera, the likely hood of the killer being captured would be similar.

How does an increase in accountability destroy trust? Please explain.

Than the issue should be about unjustified laws not the cameras themselves.
Maybe this will finally encourage people to change laws that don't provide any benefits and elect politicians that support the change, instead of letting them exist because you know you can get away with breaking them.

Duplicate articles should be removed. Greer is incorrect in his assertion this is a corporate endeavor. It involves a corporation that enables the system, but its the people that own the cameras and right to share footage without a warrant.
Its when cameras become mandatory that we should start losing our shit. To say its a 1984 dystopian future is ridiculous and distracts from legitimate discussion on the subject. Really the article is more aligned to clickbait than anything of value.

Well I can't agree with "b". It would be irresponsible of the accounting department not to take advantage of tax incentives put in place by the government. Why weren't there limits put on these incentives to prevent exploitation? Corporations have a legal obligation to investors to operate this way.
Would be nice to see the article providing more details about why the incentives exist and how wide the adoption is in industry. The title "Grand Theft Auto Maker Has Paid No UK Corporation Tax in 10 Years" leads people to believe the issue is with Rock Star and not the policies.

so your saying the intended audience of the article is for people already familiar with the issues than. That seems very uninformative for the rest of us.

i can't help but to think most are adolescents whom watch too much television.
Every time this argument comes up, there's never an intelligent argument as to why video footage of a publicly viewable space infringes on rights and freedoms (except unless you're a criminal).
And i do yearn for them. Before fully endorsing mass surveillance it would be great to see some brainstorming on legitimate risks, beyond fear based opinions anyone older than 5 could come up with.
Obviously morally corrupt individuals with unconditional access to mass surveillance would benefit at the expense of people's rights and freedoms, but if the citizens have control over the footage that issue seems mitigated, no?

It is smart, and seems like the correct way to do police surveillance. Enable people rather than force them. Everyone is to gain from a system like this. Very neighborly.

I got the impression the article was making issue with the game studio since they were explicitly singled out, and not so much the laws that enabled the tax breaks which appear glazed over.
More emphasis on the laws and politicians and less about Rockstars specific revenue would have made the intent of the article more clear.
Although the discussion in the comments do appear to be directed at issues with the polices. So that's why i mentioned.

Articles like these are ridiculous. Are they breaking the law? No?, Then write about why politicians enabled the situation.
It's a rarity, but the comments seem more intelligent than the article here (some of anyway).

Why is 5G even necessary? Is 4G not fast enough? Who out there has a genuine need for the tech (at this moment) that 4G doesn't satisfy?
I can't help but to suspect 5G is being rushed out.

I'm working on a study to see if painting old objects make them seem new again. It's so important to human discovery to spend hours of effort to understand such conundrums.