@keshav05.bsky.social
Yes, Canada’s government can be justified in banning a foreign surveillance company like Hikvision on national security grounds even without publicly disclosing detailed evidence, because revealing sensitive intelligence could compromise sources, methods, or ongoing investigations.
January 18, 2026 at 11:38 PM
Yes, Canada’s government can be justified in banning a foreign surveillance company like Hikvision on national security grounds even without publicly disclosing detailed evidence, because revealing sensitive intelligence could compromise sources, methods, or ongoing investigations.
Yes, the U.K. should criminalize the creation or request of AI-generated non-consensual intimate images, even if they are never shared, because the harm begins at the moment of creation. These images violate a person’s dignity, autonomy, and consent, and the #UCWCOMM150 @houmanmehrabian.bsky.social
January 18, 2026 at 11:37 PM
Yes, the U.K. should criminalize the creation or request of AI-generated non-consensual intimate images, even if they are never shared, because the harm begins at the moment of creation. These images violate a person’s dignity, autonomy, and consent, and the #UCWCOMM150 @houmanmehrabian.bsky.social
Should schools use surveillance cameras for safety if there is a risk that the footage could be accessed online, potentially turning schools into a modern panopticon where students feel constantly watched?”
January 18, 2026 at 11:36 PM
Should schools use surveillance cameras for safety if there is a risk that the footage could be accessed online, potentially turning schools into a modern panopticon where students feel constantly watched?”
Yes, they should be held responsible because U.S. technology companies often know that their products can be used for mass surveillance and to violate human rights. By selling or supporting these tools, they indirectly enable governments to monitor, control, or suppress citizens.
January 17, 2026 at 4:05 AM
Yes, they should be held responsible because U.S. technology companies often know that their products can be used for mass surveillance and to violate human rights. By selling or supporting these tools, they indirectly enable governments to monitor, control, or suppress citizens.
Yes, they should be held responsible because U.S. technology companies often know that their products can be used for mass surveillance and to violate human rights. By selling or supporting these tools, they indirectly enable governments to monitor, control, or suppress citizens.
January 17, 2026 at 4:05 AM
Yes, they should be held responsible because U.S. technology companies often know that their products can be used for mass surveillance and to violate human rights. By selling or supporting these tools, they indirectly enable governments to monitor, control, or suppress citizens.
Yes, they should be held responsible because U.S. technology companies often know that their products can be used for mass surveillance and to violate human rights. By selling or supporting these tools, they indirectly enable governments to monitor, control, or suppress citizens.
January 17, 2026 at 4:04 AM
Yes, they should be held responsible because U.S. technology companies often know that their products can be used for mass surveillance and to violate human rights. By selling or supporting these tools, they indirectly enable governments to monitor, control, or suppress citizens.
Yes, U.S. tech companies should be held accountable because they often know their technology can be used to monitor and suppress people. If they continue to sell or support these tools, they help make harmful surveillance possible. Holding them responsible encourages ethical business practices and
January 17, 2026 at 3:50 AM
Yes, U.S. tech companies should be held accountable because they often know their technology can be used to monitor and suppress people. If they continue to sell or support these tools, they help make harmful surveillance possible. Holding them responsible encourages ethical business practices and
No, U.S. technology companies should not be held responsible because they do not control how foreign governments use their products. These tools are often designed for general or legal purposes, and misuse is the responsibility of the government that applies them.
January 17, 2026 at 3:49 AM
No, U.S. technology companies should not be held responsible because they do not control how foreign governments use their products. These tools are often designed for general or legal purposes, and misuse is the responsibility of the government that applies them.
Yes, they should be held responsible because some U.S. tech companies know their products can be used to spy on people or control them, especially in countries with weak human rights protections. If companies make money from these tools, they should also take responsibility for how they are used.
January 17, 2026 at 3:48 AM
Yes, they should be held responsible because some U.S. tech companies know their products can be used to spy on people or control them, especially in countries with weak human rights protections. If companies make money from these tools, they should also take responsibility for how they are used.