I thought I bought a camera, but no DJI sold me a license to use it [video]

I would go further, it should not be (just) forbidden, but taboo. Just like it is taboo to install a camera in a bathroom or to listen in to private conversations.

If I have a thing, that thing should obey me. Be it a crowbar, a PC, a smart lamp or whatever. It's a value in and of itself that I can trust in my things. What about criminals? Sure, it is convenient a car can spy on a criminal and tell the police where they are, but we shouldn't allow that. Just like it would be convenient to force priests and lawyers to tell there secrets, but we as a society decided that there is greater value in confidentiality.

I mean especially for a society like the US which is traditionally individualistic and distrustful towards government etc., it should be a matter of principle that "my stuff" doesn't spy on my and serves me and no one else.

> Just like it is taboo to install a camera in a bathroom or to listen in to private conversations.

Give it 5 years. The xiaomi or LG above the bed is likely already watching and listening. Interesting how the taboo shifted from "no camera in the apartment" to "no camera in a bathroom". In many short term rentals you have outright always connected IP camera installed inside apartment because of "break ins", "squatters", etc. The owners don't see a problem, don't accept complains.

Oh, there are already cameras in bathrooms. Everywhere that has an infrared sensor near your buttcheeks that auto-flushes, or on a urinal staring into your crotch, or simply on a soap dispenser, blinking impassively until you lather up.

Those IR sensors are basically cameras; they are wired up for power, they trigger with your image.

So don’t act all surprised when they are hacked and subverted to the visible spectrum and recording capabilities.

Well, there's value in the case of lawyers. I for one wholeheartedly support legally invalidating whatever privileges priests have.

IR motion/proximity sensors are not basically cameras. You can't get an actual image from them. They are essentially a single, unfocused pixel tuned to a wide angle with a narrow filter tuned to specific wavelengths. Some of them will have a few extra pixels to try and reject background motion, but still we're talking like 3 or 4 pixels for a whole scene.

Can you please explain how an infrared sensor is remotely reconfigured to see visible light

Sure, you and I can "know this" intellectually, but the end result is that there are conscious machines lurking in every public restroom, and they await our presence, and upon our arrival they awaken and they spring to life and perform their service for the hu-man whose body temperature is somewhat normal.

So it matters not whether it's one pixel or 50 megapixels doing the work there, what matters is that everyone who attends a baseball game or eats at a restaurant is accustomed to a conscious machine that can "see" their buttcheeks well enough to know exactly when to activate the flusher without any pesky hu-man touching it.

And that there is electrical power and, probably, networking available in the restrooms so that the conscious machines can stay alive and discuss buttcheek sightings with one another and their mothership.

If you'd hide your spy camera in the soap dispenser viewing angle you'd hide your camera anywhere. You could choose to only use manual cisterns and you'd still have to worry about cameras hiding to see your junk. Probably even moreso since you're really got something to hide tbh, Streisand effect and all.