Of course I'm OK with having unregulated private video recording systems. I have 6 of them around me right now - my Macbook Pro, my iPad, iPhone, two digital cameras and home security system. Why would I want the government to tell me how to use these? Because you're afraid of the government? Fine, it is prudent, but why your fear of the government turns you to regulation which is government? Maybe you mean government should report on information it collects and not collect it without a good reason? But then sensationalist description of the technology has nothing do do with the topic, does it? Then the reporting should be - which information is collected, why and why I should be concerned about it. I would certainly welcome such article. But RT does nothing of the sort.
But you have taken much efforts trying to ridicule OP's use of words "digital", "encrypted, "instantaneously", "undisclosed" etc. How is this discussion tactics called?
I'm ridiculing them not because they use these words, but because their narrative is non-existant without these words and spooky style of their arrangement. If you strip them, you are left with "Some company has video recording security system, that involves recording data, storing it on the server and then running some algorithms on it. Some law enforcement agencies use it, and the management of the company has worked for the government in the past and now is probably using their past contacts to get government contracts". I do not see anything spooky here, and it's definitely not as sensationalist as the article is, and not nearly as interesting. That's what I am ridiculing them for - for sensationalizing a mundane piece of uninteresting information into a full-blown conspiracy theory.
But you have taken much efforts trying to ridicule OP's use of words "digital", "encrypted, "instantaneously", "undisclosed" etc. How is this discussion tactics called?
I'm ridiculing them not because they use these words, but because their narrative is non-existant without these words and spooky style of their arrangement. If you strip them, you are left with "Some company has video recording security system, that involves recording data, storing it on the server and then running some algorithms on it. Some law enforcement agencies use it, and the management of the company has worked for the government in the past and now is probably using their past contacts to get government contracts". I do not see anything spooky here, and it's definitely not as sensationalist as the article is, and not nearly as interesting. That's what I am ridiculing them for - for sensationalizing a mundane piece of uninteresting information into a full-blown conspiracy theory.