5 ms·

Are your movements in public really private information? "John Smith as seen on the corner of 14th and Main Sts at 12pm today" doesn't really smack of private i

by imgabe 11y ago

Are your movements in public really private information? "John Smith as seen on the corner of 14th and Main Sts at 12pm today" doesn't really smack of private info that needs to be protected. Yes, someone could analyze all the data and learn about your habits, but to what end? If you've got someone that dedicated to watching where you go, you probably have a larger problem than just the information existing in a database (i.e. a stalker, abusive ex, etc.) and that problem needs to be dealt with. Your location in public has always been publicly available to anyone near you, it just wasn't recorded and stored.

bweitzman 11y ago
Knowing any single piece of information is not a big deal, but stringing them together is basically stalking which is illegal.
ctrl_freak 11y ago
The information becomes more private the more aggregated it gets. If you have a stalker following you around everywhere, you can get a restraining order against them. If detailed information of your locations were to be available online, you couldn't stop anyone from looking at it.
- imgabe 11y ago
  Looking at it and then what? If they act on it by actually stalking you, then yes, arrest them. We already have laws against that. What harm comes to you by someone looking at a record of where you've been?
  - glitchdout 11y ago
    He can know when you leave and get home. Perfect time for a robbery.
    - imgabe 11y ago
      This is backwards from how robberies work. Burglars go to a neighborhood and look for a house where nobody's home. They don't pick out a house before hand and wait until it's empty. Even if they did, why would they try to crack into a government database instead of just sitting outside until you leave?
mindslight 11y ago
> If you've got someone that dedicated to watching where you go, you probably have a larger problem than just the information existing in a database (i.e. a stalker, abusive ex, etc.) and that problem needs to be dealt with. Indeed. I've been trying to convince mine that their "affection" isn't appreciated, but I don't really know how I can avoid them. They're known to abuse many people, although most of their victims will actually defend them as not so bad as others. And since some of them own the courts, I can't even get restraining orders! (The "recorded and stored" is the problem. Framing the situation as you've done is just unproductive, as it detracts from "dealing with" the new all-interested stalkers of governmental and private sector data mining)
- imgabe 11y ago
  Cute. If the government is using information to abuse people, then the problem is that the government is abusive, not that they have too much information. If you take away the information, but leave the abusive government in place, you haven't solved anything. The solution is not to limit the information, it's to limit the government's power.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    Privacy is a way of limiting governments' power, and singular attempts to limit power don't seem all that effective. So why wouldn't we try everything we can? Readily giving up one protection in hope of replacing it with another is a great way to be left with neither. Furthermore, the definition of "abuse" isn't universal. If 80% of people think some self-contained behavior should be prevented, then lacking privacy the remaining 20% will be abused with no way to change it.
    - imgabe 11y ago
      > Limiting the government's power doesn't seem to be so effective, so why not try "both" [0]? Really? It hasn't? Has your lord recently claimed his right of Prima Nocte with your new wife? Have you ever been conscripted into his army to fight against another lord? Have you seen many people summarily executed because they displeased a nobleman? I'd say we've come a fairly long way, historically, in limiting the ability of government to abuse citizens. Obviously, there is still room for improvement. > If 80% of people think some self-contained behavior should be prevented, then lacking privacy the remaining 20% will be abused with no way to change it. We have a way to change it. It's called "democracy". Letting unjust laws stand and trying to hide from the authorities instead of changing the unjust law is cowardly and ultimately ineffective. At one point 80% of people thought such self-contained behavior as being gay or interracial marriage should be illegal. We didn't make stronger privacy laws so that you could hide that you're gay or married to someone of a different race, we made it so those things aren't illegal. That is the right fix. That is the only fix that will ever work.
joelcollinsdc 11y ago
I'm surprised that this isn't as appalling to others as it is to me. Yes, I'm very disturbed that every time a police car drives past my car, a record is created in a database. The government basically knows everything about you at that point, where you shop, who you are sleeping with, etc. If you were an activist the government would practically know everywhere you go and everyone you associate with. To me this is the meatspace version of the NSA collecting all of my internet traffic, which I thought was pretty universally disliked here on HN.

by imgabe 11y ago

bweitzman 11y ago

Knowing any single piece of information is not a big deal, but stringing them together is basically stalking which is illegal.

ctrl_freak 11y ago

The information becomes more private the more aggregated it gets. If you have a stalker following you around everywhere, you can get a restraining order against them. If detailed information of your locations were to be available online, you couldn't stop anyone from looking at it.

imgabe 11y ago
Looking at it and then what? If they act on it by actually stalking you, then yes, arrest them. We already have laws against that. What harm comes to you by someone looking at a record of where you've been?
- glitchdout 11y ago
  He can know when you leave and get home. Perfect time for a robbery.
  - imgabe 11y ago
    This is backwards from how robberies work. Burglars go to a neighborhood and look for a house where nobody's home. They don't pick out a house before hand and wait until it's empty. Even if they did, why would they try to crack into a government database instead of just sitting outside until you leave?

mindslight 11y ago

> If you've got someone that dedicated to watching where you go, you probably have a larger problem than just the information existing in a database (i.e. a stalker, abusive ex, etc.) and that problem needs to be dealt with. Indeed. I've been trying to convince mine that their "affection" isn't appreciated, but I don't really know how I can avoid them. They're known to abuse many people, although most of their victims will actually defend them as not so bad as others. And since some of them own the courts, I can't even get restraining orders! (The "recorded and stored" is the problem. Framing the situation as you've done is just unproductive, as it detracts from "dealing with" the new all-interested stalkers of governmental and private sector data mining)

imgabe 11y ago
Cute. If the government is using information to abuse people, then the problem is that the government is abusive, not that they have too much information. If you take away the information, but leave the abusive government in place, you haven't solved anything. The solution is not to limit the information, it's to limit the government's power.
- mindslight 11y ago
  Privacy is a way of limiting governments' power, and singular attempts to limit power don't seem all that effective. So why wouldn't we try everything we can? Readily giving up one protection in hope of replacing it with another is a great way to be left with neither. Furthermore, the definition of "abuse" isn't universal. If 80% of people think some self-contained behavior should be prevented, then lacking privacy the remaining 20% will be abused with no way to change it.
  - imgabe 11y ago
    > Limiting the government's power doesn't seem to be so effective, so why not try "both" [0]? Really? It hasn't? Has your lord recently claimed his right of Prima Nocte with your new wife? Have you ever been conscripted into his army to fight against another lord? Have you seen many people summarily executed because they displeased a nobleman? I'd say we've come a fairly long way, historically, in limiting the ability of government to abuse citizens. Obviously, there is still room for improvement. > If 80% of people think some self-contained behavior should be prevented, then lacking privacy the remaining 20% will be abused with no way to change it. We have a way to change it. It's called "democracy". Letting unjust laws stand and trying to hide from the authorities instead of changing the unjust law is cowardly and ultimately ineffective. At one point 80% of people thought such self-contained behavior as being gay or interracial marriage should be illegal. We didn't make stronger privacy laws so that you could hide that you're gay or married to someone of a different race, we made it so those things aren't illegal. That is the right fix. That is the only fix that will ever work.

joelcollinsdc 11y ago

I'm surprised that this isn't as appalling to others as it is to me. Yes, I'm very disturbed that every time a police car drives past my car, a record is created in a database. The government basically knows everything about you at that point, where you shop, who you are sleeping with, etc. If you were an activist the government would practically know everywhere you go and everyone you associate with. To me this is the meatspace version of the NSA collecting all of my internet traffic, which I thought was pretty universally disliked here on HN.