6 ms·

> they shouldn't be in a public place... I beg your pardon?

by zdkl 11y ago

drdaeman 11y ago
Privacy is conceptually incompatible with public places. If one doesn't want that the fact they've been at some public location, doing something, they shouldn't be there. Forcing bystanding observers to not remember or not disclose the facts they have observed is somewhat odd idea.
- aw3c2 11y ago
  There is a huge difference between eye witness memory or elaboration and recording audio or video.
  - gknoy 11y ago
    Indeed: eyewitness accounts are notoriously inaccurate, whereas video can be replayed.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Which is a good thing about videos. Objective reality > subjective reality.
  - dheera 11y ago
    My point is, this difference/gap may be closed in the future by technology, so inaccuracy of eyewitness memory shouldn't be used as a basis for ethical justification.
  - drdaeman 11y ago
    Today, yes. Today recording means we're still taking a camera and do some actions. But love it or hate it, but it seems that we're grasping wearable computing. And that includes stuff like hearing, vision, memory or navigational aids, and such things depend on recording what's going on around the wearer. So, while today there's a clear distinction we're just bound to hit the issue some years in the future. And given that some tech is already there, said future doesn't seem to be too far away. Then the difference would be much smaller. Probably even non-existent if we'd get anywhere close to what transhumanistic sci-fi pictures ;) And this means a war between concepts - freedom to absorb and process information, and freedom to control your personal information. I'm not sure there is any objective approach for ethical problems, so, I guess, it would be just a matter of taste, chance and circumstances.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      That's what laws and regulation are for. When people don't know how to handle tools (in this case, tech) properly.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jaawn 11y ago
  It is unreasonable to expect to not be observed in a public place, but it is reasonable to expect to not be recorded artificially without your knowledge. This goes for all locations, including public ones.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    No, it's not. You've probably been photographed or filmed at least once on your way to work today by an innocent tourist or citizen who was shooting something. A building, or a friend perhaps. It seems unreasonable to expect you won't be featured on such photos.
    - jaawn 11y ago
      Yes, it is. I can observe innocent tourists and citizens taking photos and avoid them if I want to. The key part you missed was "without my knowledge." I'm not going to obsess over being in the background of the occasional tourist photo, but if I want to avoid it, I can by simply observing the obvious camera and avoiding it. I could even discuss it with them if I really cared for some reason, and possibly have them delete a photo of me. I am aware of tourist photos and photos by friends. It is reasonable to expect that I'll be in occasional photographs where I am not the subject. I know that. It is reasonable to expect that I won't be the subject of photos without my knowledge or included in detailed photographic records just because I went to a public place. Detailed imagery of your whereabouts and activities should never be expected and should only be legal with a warrant.
- sgt101 11y ago
  There is a conceptual difference between granting permission for everyone who sees you at a time to see you and know you were somewhere and granting permission for everyone in a place to make images of you and share them with everyone else in the world for all time. I think that this is especially pertinent for children who are not able to make the decision to grant these rights, the permission for a photograph or video cannot be rescinded on majority, but the person could make different decisions about where they go, what they wear and how they behave, with limited responsibility for the prior decision to do something else.

> they shouldn't be in a public place... I beg your pardon?

by zdkl 11y ago

> they shouldn't be in a public place... I beg your pardon?

Privacy is conceptually incompatible with public places. If one doesn't want that the fact they've been at some public location, doing something, they shouldn't be there. Forcing bystanding observers to not remember or not disclose the facts they have observed is somewhat odd idea.

aw3c2 11y ago
There is a huge difference between eye witness memory or elaboration and recording audio or video.
- gknoy 11y ago
  Indeed: eyewitness accounts are notoriously inaccurate, whereas video can be replayed.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Which is a good thing about videos. Objective reality > subjective reality.
- dheera 11y ago
  My point is, this difference/gap may be closed in the future by technology, so inaccuracy of eyewitness memory shouldn't be used as a basis for ethical justification.
- drdaeman 11y ago
  Today, yes. Today recording means we're still taking a camera and do some actions. But love it or hate it, but it seems that we're grasping wearable computing. And that includes stuff like hearing, vision, memory or navigational aids, and such things depend on recording what's going on around the wearer. So, while today there's a clear distinction we're just bound to hit the issue some years in the future. And given that some tech is already there, said future doesn't seem to be too far away. Then the difference would be much smaller. Probably even non-existent if we'd get anywhere close to what transhumanistic sci-fi pictures ;) And this means a war between concepts - freedom to absorb and process information, and freedom to control your personal information. I'm not sure there is any objective approach for ethical problems, so, I guess, it would be just a matter of taste, chance and circumstances.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    That's what laws and regulation are for. When people don't know how to handle tools (in this case, tech) properly.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jaawn 11y ago
It is unreasonable to expect to not be observed in a public place, but it is reasonable to expect to not be recorded artificially without your knowledge. This goes for all locations, including public ones.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  No, it's not. You've probably been photographed or filmed at least once on your way to work today by an innocent tourist or citizen who was shooting something. A building, or a friend perhaps. It seems unreasonable to expect you won't be featured on such photos.
  - jaawn 11y ago
    Yes, it is. I can observe innocent tourists and citizens taking photos and avoid them if I want to. The key part you missed was "without my knowledge." I'm not going to obsess over being in the background of the occasional tourist photo, but if I want to avoid it, I can by simply observing the obvious camera and avoiding it. I could even discuss it with them if I really cared for some reason, and possibly have them delete a photo of me. I am aware of tourist photos and photos by friends. It is reasonable to expect that I'll be in occasional photographs where I am not the subject. I know that. It is reasonable to expect that I won't be the subject of photos without my knowledge or included in detailed photographic records just because I went to a public place. Detailed imagery of your whereabouts and activities should never be expected and should only be legal with a warrant.
sgt101 11y ago
There is a conceptual difference between granting permission for everyone who sees you at a time to see you and know you were somewhere and granting permission for everyone in a place to make images of you and share them with everyone else in the world for all time. I think that this is especially pertinent for children who are not able to make the decision to grant these rights, the permission for a photograph or video cannot be rescinded on majority, but the person could make different decisions about where they go, what they wear and how they behave, with limited responsibility for the prior decision to do something else.