9 ms·

There should be a distinction if a party is a public servant on duty. There should be a distinction if the party being recorded is in public. Courts have routi

by rosser 17y ago

There should be a distinction if a party is a public servant on duty. There should be a distinction if the party being recorded is in public. Courts have routinely ruled to the effect that one has "no expectation of privacy" when out in public. That the party being recorded is a public servant, engaged in (purportedly) public service just makes it all the more ... well, public.

rdtsc 17y ago
> There should be a distinction if the party being recorded is in public. Please read my full comment. It does mention that an officer would have to be in public. In other words, recording him in the mens room would not be appropriate.
Silhouette 17y ago
Be careful what you wish for. If you declare anything in public to be fair game, but fail to allow for the possibilities of recording, mining and sharing data created by modern technology, you may not like the result. For example, you probably wouldn't mind if I walked past you in the street and saw you go into a shop. You might object if I followed you around from the moment you left your home, filmed every shop you went into, what you bought, what you paid with (including any visible numbers on your cards, any PINs you typed in, what your signature looked like, etc.) and then put this on the web along with your name and address. The idea that privacy is some sort of black-and-white concept is part of the problem.
- rosser 17y ago
  You might object if I followed you around from the moment you left your home... You're right; I might. I might also press charges for "stalking", which many jurisdictions have termed that kind of behavior, making it specifically illegal.
  - Silhouette 17y ago
    So where is the dividing line, then? When does incidental observation (but stored for all time in a database searchable by the public, say) become stalking? In particular, is it possible that no individual act of recording personal data observed in public would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy (whatever we choose to call that in law) yet the combined total still has the effect of stalking? Because that is the real problem that, IMHO, the law hasn't caught up with yet. In a connected, database-driven world, you can't judge everything in isolation, because it is often the cumulative effect that is the dangerous thing.

by rosser 17y ago

rdtsc 17y ago

> There should be a distinction if the party being recorded is in public. Please read my full comment. It does mention that an officer would have to be in public. In other words, recording him in the mens room would not be appropriate.

Silhouette 17y ago

Be careful what you wish for. If you declare anything in public to be fair game, but fail to allow for the possibilities of recording, mining and sharing data created by modern technology, you may not like the result. For example, you probably wouldn't mind if I walked past you in the street and saw you go into a shop. You might object if I followed you around from the moment you left your home, filmed every shop you went into, what you bought, what you paid with (including any visible numbers on your cards, any PINs you typed in, what your signature looked like, etc.) and then put this on the web along with your name and address. The idea that privacy is some sort of black-and-white concept is part of the problem.

rosser 17y ago
You might object if I followed you around from the moment you left your home... You're right; I might. I might also press charges for "stalking", which many jurisdictions have termed that kind of behavior, making it specifically illegal.
- Silhouette 17y ago
  So where is the dividing line, then? When does incidental observation (but stored for all time in a database searchable by the public, say) become stalking? In particular, is it possible that no individual act of recording personal data observed in public would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy (whatever we choose to call that in law) yet the combined total still has the effect of stalking? Because that is the real problem that, IMHO, the law hasn't caught up with yet. In a connected, database-driven world, you can't judge everything in isolation, because it is often the cumulative effect that is the dangerous thing.