I ran it 5 times and all IDs (dZP06FnaUjtPOYh0s6Xy, Gp4E34k89Kox5ZS0HsRr, Al0HFjDTTEOGlUasncXa, ZCfnXPFd08a2c0ZtplPT, 0UPk10WDNg6BEAElMReI) are different. Most mentioning me being a first time visitor, unlike the second uniquely being 6th time visitor. So I haven’t been able to reproduce it.
These “phony companies” could in turn be operated by state actors: as there have been physical product launches in the past, which turned out to be honey pots. Perhaps state actors, can no longer convince privacy enthusiasts (unfortunately including criminals), to fall for their honey pots, and shift efforts to tarnishing reputation instead.
Thankfully the US government would never circumvent supposed protections otherwise. I mean, they most certainly wouldn’t use taxpayer money, to obtain information about said taxpayers. You should just trust your government, to protect you against government surveillance… what conflict of interest?
This nice visualization seems to be based on numbers from Comparitech’s ‘The World’s Most Surveilled Cities’ (which is worth a read). Which states China’s numbers can only be based on estimates (as the CCP doesn’t publicly disclose any real numbers): the speculative nature of which, possibly being the reason why it’s not included here. The others are based on sources (one has to request access to, for some reason: which I’m not willing to do), but doubt represent reality: as it correctly recognizes many “private” cameras are public facing (especially in the Western world), which also makes it near impossible to discern which are actually public facing (which might not be all that relevant).
Any data processor of relevant size within the European Union (including those processing camera footage), is required by the GDPR to have an effective government agent (or “data protection officer”) to oversee their operation. This agent (likely “working” for multiple processors) under professional secrecy, is legally required to comply with authorities’ requests for additional processing (including: making accessible such data, apply processing operations outside of its processor’s legal basis (without disclosing it to them), or even delete information): requests not to be disclosed publicly. So effectively, the EU’s authorities have a legal backdoor to all these “private” cameras; and if visualized would create an entirely different picture.
has done nothing except for making people bypass it entirely
Which seems to be by design, based on similarity, to approaches taken by other governments: shifting the blame to citizens (reasonably) circumventing the legislation (creating the typical infighting), and granting further excuses to further tighten government control. Legislation as such, can only be introduced under a false pretense, or few politicians dare to be in support of such works. If introduced to “protect the children”, you can gradually shape it to effectively fulfill your interest; instead of spoiling true intentions right away.
(1) defund the police, (2) act surprised when crime rises, (3) respond with surveillance tech: the good ol’ problem-reaction-solution paradigm