4 ms·

Many of these CCTV services are outsourced, which means private entities are recording you, me, and everybody else in public places. I don't know how paranoid a

Many of these CCTV services are outsourced, which means private entities are recording you, me, and everybody else in public places. I don't know how paranoid are those friends of you, but you'd better be concerned.

golergka 11y ago
So? Private company may very well put a camera in a public space and record everyone for any reason whatsoever, that's why we call it "public". How is it conceptually different from you taking photo of Eiffel tower (and every tourist around it)?
- vidarh 11y ago
  He isn't putting his camera up there 24/7, that's how it is conceptually different. Even up in the Eiffel Tower there are times of day where you can get moments "to yourself" out of the view of tourist cameras, and on the ground around it you can be pretty much alone at times - even the hordes of tourists do not manage to reduce the level of relative privacy as much as the CCTV.
  - golergka 11y ago
    > there are times of day where you can get moments "to yourself" out of the view of tourist cameras Yes, but I think it's strange to consider that as a necessary requirement. First of all, can you even formulate this requirement precisely? Because "in any public space, there should be up to 10 seconds a day where a person would find himself not observed by anybody" sounds a little bit ridiculous.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      I think you have it backward. The original claim is that there was never privacy in public. The next comment refuted that claim by giving counterexamples. Can you demonstrate that a lack of privacy is a requirement?
      - golergka 11y ago
        > The original claim is that there was never privacy in public. No, that's not the claim. The claim is that there was never a guarantee or right of privacy in public.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Because of the amount of data. Being in public has never before meant that everything you did in public was stored in a format that will eventually be mined which private and public companies can get access to. If you don't see the problem with this, wait til the mining software can detect homosexuals and is deployed in a country where you can be killed for being such. "But I have nothing to hide." Maybe you do, maybe you don't. Even if you are good and the government is good right now, that still doesn't make you safe in the future. And it is quite clear there are already bad actors in the government. Perhaps you are the one about to expose another child abuse scandal... do you want the guy you are about to expose to have access to everything you've ever done in public, because I'm sure they can find a few minor crimes that they can then twist to silence you. Even if you are Jesus incarnate and have behaved perfectly while in public, they can still just edit it some misbehavior to silence you.
  - golergka 11y ago
    > Because of the amount of data. I understand the rationale behind that. But as long as we can't put in an easy to check, precise limit to the "amount" of "data" that we allow collected, we'll never be able to effectively enforce that limit.
    - repsilat 11y ago
      If there is no sensible, enforceable limit between "none" and "as much as you want" (arguable), and if the latter is worse than the former (also arguable) then we'd naturally conclude that we should ban all of it. Perhaps there are "strange" compromises, though -- what if a business owner had to seek permission to view the footage of their permanent camera if it were in a public place?
- shabble 11y ago
  Entertainingly, the operators of the light-show[1] around the Eiffel tower are claiming any photo taken at night (when the lights are operating) is required to obtain a licence[2][3] [1] http://www.toureiffel.paris/en/faq.html http://www.toureiffel.paris/en/faq.html "Are you allowed to publish photos of the Eiffel Tower?" [2] Dubious extra source: https://torrentfreak.com/night-time-eiffel-tower-photos-are-a-copyright-violation-141108/ https://torrentfreak.com/night-time-eiffel-tower-photos-are-... [3] http://artlawjournal.com/night-photos-eiffel-tower-violate-copyright/ http://artlawjournal.com/night-photos-eiffel-tower-violate-c... suggests the same, although the claim is untested and probably has a personal-use exception anyway.
- rawTruthHurts 11y ago
  I am not a public person. Neither they are public companies neither they asked for my consent.

golergka 11y ago

So? Private company may very well put a camera in a public space and record everyone for any reason whatsoever, that's why we call it "public". How is it conceptually different from you taking photo of Eiffel tower (and every tourist around it)?

vidarh 11y ago
He isn't putting his camera up there 24/7, that's how it is conceptually different. Even up in the Eiffel Tower there are times of day where you can get moments "to yourself" out of the view of tourist cameras, and on the ground around it you can be pretty much alone at times - even the hordes of tourists do not manage to reduce the level of relative privacy as much as the CCTV.
- golergka 11y ago
  > there are times of day where you can get moments "to yourself" out of the view of tourist cameras Yes, but I think it's strange to consider that as a necessary requirement. First of all, can you even formulate this requirement precisely? Because "in any public space, there should be up to 10 seconds a day where a person would find himself not observed by anybody" sounds a little bit ridiculous.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    I think you have it backward. The original claim is that there was never privacy in public. The next comment refuted that claim by giving counterexamples. Can you demonstrate that a lack of privacy is a requirement?
    - golergka 11y ago
      > The original claim is that there was never privacy in public. No, that's not the claim. The claim is that there was never a guarantee or right of privacy in public.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Because of the amount of data. Being in public has never before meant that everything you did in public was stored in a format that will eventually be mined which private and public companies can get access to. If you don't see the problem with this, wait til the mining software can detect homosexuals and is deployed in a country where you can be killed for being such. "But I have nothing to hide." Maybe you do, maybe you don't. Even if you are good and the government is good right now, that still doesn't make you safe in the future. And it is quite clear there are already bad actors in the government. Perhaps you are the one about to expose another child abuse scandal... do you want the guy you are about to expose to have access to everything you've ever done in public, because I'm sure they can find a few minor crimes that they can then twist to silence you. Even if you are Jesus incarnate and have behaved perfectly while in public, they can still just edit it some misbehavior to silence you.
- golergka 11y ago
  > Because of the amount of data. I understand the rationale behind that. But as long as we can't put in an easy to check, precise limit to the "amount" of "data" that we allow collected, we'll never be able to effectively enforce that limit.
  - repsilat 11y ago
    If there is no sensible, enforceable limit between "none" and "as much as you want" (arguable), and if the latter is worse than the former (also arguable) then we'd naturally conclude that we should ban all of it. Perhaps there are "strange" compromises, though -- what if a business owner had to seek permission to view the footage of their permanent camera if it were in a public place?
shabble 11y ago
Entertainingly, the operators of the light-show[1] around the Eiffel tower are claiming any photo taken at night (when the lights are operating) is required to obtain a licence[2][3] [1] http://www.toureiffel.paris/en/faq.html http://www.toureiffel.paris/en/faq.html "Are you allowed to publish photos of the Eiffel Tower?" [2] Dubious extra source: https://torrentfreak.com/night-time-eiffel-tower-photos-are-a-copyright-violation-141108/ https://torrentfreak.com/night-time-eiffel-tower-photos-are-... [3] http://artlawjournal.com/night-photos-eiffel-tower-violate-copyright/ http://artlawjournal.com/night-photos-eiffel-tower-violate-c... suggests the same, although the claim is untested and probably has a personal-use exception anyway.
rawTruthHurts 11y ago
I am not a public person. Neither they are public companies neither they asked for my consent.