4 ms·

You can't opt out while being in public. That's unreasonable.

matt4077 9y ago
"That's unreasonable" isn't an argument. What's reasonable is decided by society. New technologies may change what's possible, and make something that was ok before the means to achieve something entirely new. If, for example, these gadgets, or existing security cameras started to pool their data, run (accurate) face-detection on it, and start publicising everyones' location history online, I'm pretty sure most people would object to that–even those that previously had no problem with their image being recorded by the CCTV at the gas station, or the tourist taking a photo that included them.
- imaginenore 9y ago
  It is an argument, what a "reasonable person" thinks is a standard judicial system consideration https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person You have no expectation of privacy in a public space, and the courts have agreed with that many times https://www.wired.com/2010/09/public-privacy/ https://www.wired.com/2010/09/public-privacy/
  - jforman 9y ago
    That's far more simplistic than what the law actually says (where "law" is the collection of statutes and judicial interpretations). As an example: http://resources.uscannenbergmedia.com/2016/08/videotaping-and-recording-in-public-in-california-the-basics/ http://resources.uscannenbergmedia.com/2016/08/videotaping-a... "Remember, even if you’re in public, you cannot record conversations between two people unless you have their permission. This includes conversations that you’re one of the parties to. If one person in the conversation can reasonably expect his or her conversation to be confidential, this standard applies." If you're having a private conversation in a public park, then it is probably illegal for somebody else to record you. Driving is a different question. Personally I think since a license plate is literally meant to publicly identify your car, a reasonable person should expect it to be recorded. But my guess is this will go to SCOTUS at some point, since privacy is increasingly being invaded in unanticipated ways by private companies.
  - nhaehnle 9y ago
    That's not really a response to matt4077's argument, which is that what a "reasonable person" may think can change based on changed circumstances such as development of new technological possibilities.
- garrettlangley 9y ago
  each neighborhood owns their data and they would have to opt-in to any type of data sharing between neighborhoods. our goal isn't to build a big-brother system. we believe that if you are on a public road there isn't a perceived expectation of privacy.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
kuschku 9y ago
Depends on where you live. In Germany any CCTV recording of a public place is automatically illegal. There’s a handful of exceptions (for example, for the parliament), but generally, this holds true. Opt-in is what’s legally required, and should be the default.
- alexro 9y ago
  How can all the people passing before the camera to opt in?
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Exactly. That’s why you don’t put up cameras in the first place.
    - Danihan 9y ago
      So only the government can record what's happening, and if private citizens or companies do so they are shamed and jailed?
      - kuschku 9y ago
        The government can’t do that either, they’s the point (except for a handful of rare exceptions). The police can’t even film protests to identify protestors.
        Danihan 9y ago
        You're saying the German government has no video cameras on any traffic intersections / public areas period?
        kuschku 9y ago
        Unless there is a specific situation that there is a threat there, and a warrant for that situation, no. For traffic situations there are specialized systems that open a physical filter in front of a camera lens only if someone is detected to be speeding, and the camera is then limited to that lane, for that short moment.

"That's unreasonable" isn't an argument. What's reasonable is decided by society. New technologies may change what's possible, and make something that was ok before the means to achieve something entirely new. If, for example, these gadgets, or existing security cameras started to pool their data, run (accurate) face-detection on it, and start publicising everyones' location history online, I'm pretty sure most people would object to that–even those that previously had no problem with their image being recorded by the CCTV at the gas station, or the tourist taking a photo that included them.

imaginenore 9y ago
It is an argument, what a "reasonable person" thinks is a standard judicial system consideration https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person You have no expectation of privacy in a public space, and the courts have agreed with that many times https://www.wired.com/2010/09/public-privacy/ https://www.wired.com/2010/09/public-privacy/
- jforman 9y ago
  That's far more simplistic than what the law actually says (where "law" is the collection of statutes and judicial interpretations). As an example: http://resources.uscannenbergmedia.com/2016/08/videotaping-and-recording-in-public-in-california-the-basics/ http://resources.uscannenbergmedia.com/2016/08/videotaping-a... "Remember, even if you’re in public, you cannot record conversations between two people unless you have their permission. This includes conversations that you’re one of the parties to. If one person in the conversation can reasonably expect his or her conversation to be confidential, this standard applies." If you're having a private conversation in a public park, then it is probably illegal for somebody else to record you. Driving is a different question. Personally I think since a license plate is literally meant to publicly identify your car, a reasonable person should expect it to be recorded. But my guess is this will go to SCOTUS at some point, since privacy is increasingly being invaded in unanticipated ways by private companies.
- nhaehnle 9y ago
  That's not really a response to matt4077's argument, which is that what a "reasonable person" may think can change based on changed circumstances such as development of new technological possibilities.
garrettlangley 9y ago
each neighborhood owns their data and they would have to opt-in to any type of data sharing between neighborhoods. our goal isn't to build a big-brother system. we believe that if you are on a public road there isn't a perceived expectation of privacy.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

kuschku 9y ago

Depends on where you live. In Germany any CCTV recording of a public place is automatically illegal. There’s a handful of exceptions (for example, for the parliament), but generally, this holds true. Opt-in is what’s legally required, and should be the default.

alexro 9y ago
How can all the people passing before the camera to opt in?
- kuschku 9y ago
  Exactly. That’s why you don’t put up cameras in the first place.
  - Danihan 9y ago
    So only the government can record what's happening, and if private citizens or companies do so they are shamed and jailed?
    - kuschku 9y ago
      The government can’t do that either, they’s the point (except for a handful of rare exceptions). The police can’t even film protests to identify protestors.
      - Danihan 9y ago
        You're saying the German government has no video cameras on any traffic intersections / public areas period?
        kuschku 9y ago
        Unless there is a specific situation that there is a threat there, and a warrant for that situation, no. For traffic situations there are specialized systems that open a physical filter in front of a camera lens only if someone is detected to be speeding, and the camera is then limited to that lane, for that short moment.