• Glytch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Fuck that. Lime’s business model promotes this sort of littering. These things are left in the most random places and it’s a hazard. Just pull them off the streets entirely.

    • IcyToes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      The problem is it’s done by folk that don’t pay and probably covering their face. The fact the company thinks it’s cheaper to lose bikes than pay rent for land for stations to secure the bikes between customers is the problem. They don’t care.

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          There absolutely is, people break the disabling mechanism. I’ve had two go past me today with the obvious clack-clack-clack-clack of it.

    • Creat@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      2 days ago

      Sounds nice until you think about the implications for everyone that doesn’t vandalize or destroy these bikes. I’m most certainly not going to rent one if it has 360° surveillance capabilities.

        • Creat@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Yes totally. I would trust any company to always do this the right way. And there would never be an incident where some footage gets leaked, or passed around the office. “Oops there must have been a malfunction”.

          Yes like Amazon AND Google haven’t been caught saving private conversations that their voice assistants recorded totally unintentionally even though they weren’t triggered. They did totally say “sorry” and won’t do it again, ever. Right? Right?

          • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Sure, if you live in a shithole country like the US or a wanna-be-shithile country like the UK, companies can just trample you privacy. But in the EU, privacy is protected and you can easily introduce legislation that any non-government surveillance needs to be set up in a way that makes automatic permanent surveillance impossible.

            • Creat@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              21 minutes ago

              I live in the EU. The violations of Google and Amazon I mentioned also happened in the EU. Feel free to look up the repercussions on those. Having rules is irrelevant if there is no way to actually enforce them, or at least verify them. It would be doable (maybe not quite “easy”) to have that verifiable, but there is no system or law in place for it as it stands right now.

              You can trust them companies that would put surveillance equipment like that in their stuff to not abuse it, that’s your call. I just won’t use it. In quite a few EU countries this wouldn’t be allowed anyway, btw. At least not with current laws in regards to video recording in and around traffic. For example dash cams are still not fully legal in Germany, and only very limited recording (and storing) of footage is permitted.

        • Thassodar@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Sounds like a lot of technology on something that can and will be trashed by the public.