3 ms·

So taking a photo of (or making a memory of having seen) doesn't violate your privacy, but publishing that information does? I'm not criticizing you; just clar

by jMyles 11y ago

So taking a photo of (or making a memory of having seen) doesn't violate your privacy, but publishing that information does? I'm not criticizing you; just clarifying. These are tough questions. I tend to think that if you're in the clear to document something (ie, it's in public), then you are in the clear to publish it. Otherwise, we have a mess of free speech boundaries.

amagumori 11y ago
well, your dichotomy is fundamentally flawed imo. it's not "having information but keeping it private" vs. "having information and publishing it to the public". the real issue is "a person who knows me well enough to know my license plate number can know my location at one point in time if they happen to be in the immediate area" vs. "all people who can find my license plate number can know my location at all points in time". the dichotomy is "everyone in the checkout line can see what i'm buying" vs. "all people who know my first and last name can view my entire credit card transaction history".
- VanillaLime 11y ago
  I guess I don't see the distinction. If I see your license plate at the supermarket and post online that "license plate AAAAAA was seen at Whole Foods on December 6th", how is that qualitatively different from a license plate reader scanning your plate and storing that "license plate AAAAAA was at coordinates XX.XXXX, XX.XXXX at 2015-12-06?" Unless you want to draw a line between information which is directly observed by people and information which is collected by machine, this seems like a difference of degree, not of kind.
  - msandford 11y ago
    Quantitative differences eventually become qualitative ones. Nobody cares about any one particular data point being published; it's the collection of all of them that's revealing. See the "metadata" debate that's been going on for a year or two now. I suspect that most folks would be willing to self-publish their checking account balance on one random day. But every day for a year, or their whole lives? Probably not. You have to marry me if you want to have that kind of information.
  - scentoni 11y ago
    Quantity has a quality all its own.
  - peteretep 11y ago
    As with most pieces of surveillance, it's that there's a cost difference. To find out where I am, you'd currently need to have me tailed. The cost involved gives me a reasonable degree of privacy in my estimation. You'd need to have some kind of reasonable cause, and assets, and need to think there was something in monitoring my movements worth spending for. If it costs you $5 to pull up a complete driving history, you can surveil 1,000 people for the same cost, and go for a fishing trip. See if anyone moderately wealthy has been in a bad part of town, etc
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >I guess I don't see the distinction. Do you see a distinction between me taking a photo of you by being out in public being my right and me using a special camera to pick up photons emitted by your body and not blocked by your clothing and creating an image from these? Do you see a distinction between me being able to look into your window from the public sidewalk and me using infrared technology to map out everything you do in the house? What if I invent a camera that can take a photo of a letter and reveal all the contents inside in easily readable detail, without needing to touch the letter. By you grabbing a letter out of your mailbox, you are letting me see the outside of it, so if this camera can capture the content is there any significant difference?
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
A photo of you in public does not violate your privacy. It has been ruled, time and time again, that the image you present is public and anyone can take a picture of it. BUT, technology allows me to capture far more than the visible spectrum. Give your clothes probably don't consist of lead plates, part of the photos I can detect are from your body and not your clothes. So using this information, and some recoloring algorithms, I can likely create a decent image of your underlying body. Applying technology allows for more information to be withdrawn from situations where previously that information wasn't available. But due to the need for advanced technology to pick up on the information, most people do not even realize they are leaking it. (Take private conversation being recorded at a distance by viewing vibrations in objects near where the conversation is happening.) Our technology has outpaced our moral/philosophical reasoning and the gap keeps growing.
vmarsy 11y ago
Sorry for the long reply, no worries I don't take it as a critic. It's actually more like what amagumori said: the dichotomy is "everyone in the checkout line can see what i'm buying" vs. "all people who know my first and last name can view my entire credit card transaction history". If you see my license plate in the street today, I wouldn't care at all. I wouldn't be fine if you published that information in a "where is everybody right now" wiki. From that wiki a stalker would have it really easy to ruin my life; a burglar could break in at the good moment; an employer could know I visited their concurrent, probably for an interview; I go to this church/mosque/synagogue/... : now you know my religion;the neighborhood association could see I have 'too many' (for their standard) friends (or AirBnB customers?) visiting; marketers could see I go often to store X,Y, on vacation to Z, that I'm more of a Fast food Mc lover than a BK, ... Also: So taking a photo of (or making a memory of having seen) doesn't violate your privacy . For many Europeans countries it does violate the privacy, if that photo has no public information purpose. For instance: http://uk.practicallaw.com/7-573-6346 http://uk.practicallaw.com/7-573-6346

by jMyles 11y ago

amagumori 11y ago

well, your dichotomy is fundamentally flawed imo. it's not "having information but keeping it private" vs. "having information and publishing it to the public". the real issue is "a person who knows me well enough to know my license plate number can know my location at one point in time if they happen to be in the immediate area" vs. "all people who can find my license plate number can know my location at all points in time". the dichotomy is "everyone in the checkout line can see what i'm buying" vs. "all people who know my first and last name can view my entire credit card transaction history".

VanillaLime 11y ago
I guess I don't see the distinction. If I see your license plate at the supermarket and post online that "license plate AAAAAA was seen at Whole Foods on December 6th", how is that qualitatively different from a license plate reader scanning your plate and storing that "license plate AAAAAA was at coordinates XX.XXXX, XX.XXXX at 2015-12-06?" Unless you want to draw a line between information which is directly observed by people and information which is collected by machine, this seems like a difference of degree, not of kind.
- msandford 11y ago
  Quantitative differences eventually become qualitative ones. Nobody cares about any one particular data point being published; it's the collection of all of them that's revealing. See the "metadata" debate that's been going on for a year or two now. I suspect that most folks would be willing to self-publish their checking account balance on one random day. But every day for a year, or their whole lives? Probably not. You have to marry me if you want to have that kind of information.
- scentoni 11y ago
  Quantity has a quality all its own.
- peteretep 11y ago
  As with most pieces of surveillance, it's that there's a cost difference. To find out where I am, you'd currently need to have me tailed. The cost involved gives me a reasonable degree of privacy in my estimation. You'd need to have some kind of reasonable cause, and assets, and need to think there was something in monitoring my movements worth spending for. If it costs you $5 to pull up a complete driving history, you can surveil 1,000 people for the same cost, and go for a fishing trip. See if anyone moderately wealthy has been in a bad part of town, etc
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >I guess I don't see the distinction. Do you see a distinction between me taking a photo of you by being out in public being my right and me using a special camera to pick up photons emitted by your body and not blocked by your clothing and creating an image from these? Do you see a distinction between me being able to look into your window from the public sidewalk and me using infrared technology to map out everything you do in the house? What if I invent a camera that can take a photo of a letter and reveal all the contents inside in easily readable detail, without needing to touch the letter. By you grabbing a letter out of your mailbox, you are letting me see the outside of it, so if this camera can capture the content is there any significant difference?

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

A photo of you in public does not violate your privacy. It has been ruled, time and time again, that the image you present is public and anyone can take a picture of it. BUT, technology allows me to capture far more than the visible spectrum. Give your clothes probably don't consist of lead plates, part of the photos I can detect are from your body and not your clothes. So using this information, and some recoloring algorithms, I can likely create a decent image of your underlying body. Applying technology allows for more information to be withdrawn from situations where previously that information wasn't available. But due to the need for advanced technology to pick up on the information, most people do not even realize they are leaking it. (Take private conversation being recorded at a distance by viewing vibrations in objects near where the conversation is happening.) Our technology has outpaced our moral/philosophical reasoning and the gap keeps growing.

vmarsy 11y ago

Sorry for the long reply, no worries I don't take it as a critic. It's actually more like what amagumori said: the dichotomy is "everyone in the checkout line can see what i'm buying" vs. "all people who know my first and last name can view my entire credit card transaction history". If you see my license plate in the street today, I wouldn't care at all. I wouldn't be fine if you published that information in a "where is everybody right now" wiki. From that wiki a stalker would have it really easy to ruin my life; a burglar could break in at the good moment; an employer could know I visited their concurrent, probably for an interview; I go to this church/mosque/synagogue/... : now you know my religion;the neighborhood association could see I have 'too many' (for their standard) friends (or AirBnB customers?) visiting; marketers could see I go often to store X,Y, on vacation to Z, that I'm more of a Fast food Mc lover than a BK, ... Also: So taking a photo of (or making a memory of having seen) doesn't violate your privacy . For many Europeans countries it does violate the privacy, if that photo has no public information purpose. For instance: http://uk.practicallaw.com/7-573-6346 http://uk.practicallaw.com/7-573-6346