4 ms·
I don't think that either, because I correctly recognize that in public, you do not have privacy, either de jure or de facto. Especially if you're not even wear
by 794CD01 9y ago
I don't think that either, because I correctly recognize that in public, you do not have privacy, either de jure or de facto. Especially if you're not even wearing a burqa, which would today at least give you de jure privacy because it demonstrates intent.
I'm sure that in the future, we will also create cheaply available opaque faraday cages that you can roll around in if you wish. And that most people will not care to do so.
- Retra 9y agoYou do have privacy in public. Both the de jure "reasonable expectation of privacy" and the de facto privacies of anonymity, free association, and predictable rules of social engagement.
- 794CD01 9y ago>the de jure "reasonable expectation of privacy" Does not protect your exposed face >the de facto privacies of anonymity, free association, and predictable rules of social engagement Are outdated illusions with no basis in fact
- Retra 9y agoWell, I seem to have no trouble practicing all of those, so I know they are based on fact. Perhaps you don't actually understand what I'm talking about? Or maybe your experiences differ. Either way, telling me the things that that I personally do are not being done is... not an argument. >>the de jure "reasonable expectation of privacy" > Does not protect your exposed face Yeah, that's why it is "reasonable expectations" not "absolute enforcement."
- 794CD01 9y agoIn other words, as long as you are unaware of the surveillance, you are happy to pretend it doesn't exist? So where's the problem? Just don't click on links like the OP.