7 ms·
It can be a privacy violation but the idea of a fundamental right to privacy is not universally supported like free speech. If it is a fundamental right, how f
by wilsonnb 8y ago
It can be a privacy violation but the idea of a fundamental right to privacy is not universally supported like free speech.
If it is a fundamental right, how far does it go? Should I be able to sue you for watching me walk in a public place? Photographing me? Video taping me? What about a privately owned but still public place?
There are a lot of questions here that I think people tend to skip over about users owning information about them and being able to control it.
- lovich 8y agoThere are lots of laws against following someone and observing/recording every move they make. Making some observations out your window of cars passing by is something no one ever had a problem with. Taking down every single identifier you could and coordinating with others to track that person, for a profit, is something that would not be kosher in meat space. Why this different just because it's on a computer?
- jimmaswell 8y agoWould any of that actually be illegal in "meat space" as long as it didn't qualify as harassment?
- lovich 8y agoWould any data collection on the "internet" actually be illegal as long as it didn't qualify as illegal data collection? That's the whole point of the law is to say it's illegal, the same way laws made stalking people illegal
- wilsonnb 8y agoThe laws you talk about are, I think, laws about stalking. I'm not aware of any laws that apply to that kind of thing if it happens on a massive scale. Singling someone out is an important part of stalking. Keeping detailed information about everyone that enters your store isn't illegal, as far as I know. Especially not information that is gained from observation (what color shirt they're wearing, their IP address) and information that is submitted willingly (their name given for a reservation at a restaurant, their username).
- s73v3r_ 8y agoI'm sorry, but I cannot buy the argument that this is in any way, shape, or form related to "free speech".
- jimmaswell 8y agoFree speech of a webmaster being infringed by not allowing them to repeat information that their users gave them. Easy.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoNope. That is not a free speech issue. It is an irresponsible business issue. Also, no one who actually does this stuff for a living uses the term "webmaster".
- jimmaswell 8y ago>Also, no one who actually does this stuff for a living uses the term "webmaster". Have I been hallucinating my workplace this whole time?
- wilsonnb 8y agoI wasn't trying to say it was - I was simply saying that when you base an argument on free speech, you don't have to explain why free speech is a good thing because it's generally accepted by everyone to be a good thing. In this case, a lot of people base their argument on a fundamental right to privacy which is not generally accepted by everyone and therefore it has to be explained because it's an important part of the discussion.