5 ms·

A streetlight by definition has public view of a street. No expectation of privacy.

clubm8 8y ago
>A streetlight by definition has public view of a street. No expectation of privacy. This norm was established when it would have required the police to station a human outside your home. Have you considered thinking critically about the impacts of surveillance technology, rather than reciting quotes from 6th grade social studies absent any introspection?
- twblalock 8y ago
  > Have you considered thinking critically about the impacts of surveillance technology, rather than reciting quotes from 6th grade social studies absent any introspection? Have you considered not being rude and insulting? People who think critically about surveillance have a wide range of views on the topic.
  - clubm8 8y ago
    >Have you considered not being rude and insulting? I'm sorry you feel that way, I didn't mean for you to feel insulted. >People who think critically about surveillance have a wide range of views on the topic. Reciting the law is an act of recall, not exposition.
- DenisM 8y ago
  > Have you considered thinking critically ... rather than reciting quotes from 6th grade social studies absent any introspection. This is in violation of HN guideline: "Don't be snarky" [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - clubm8 8y ago
    I disagree. Do you have any specific feedback on the content of my post, rather than the tone?
    - InitialLastName 8y ago
      GP is citing to you an actual HN guideline that specifically refers to the tone of your post. If it helps, here's the guideline in full: > Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. > Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. In your case, you accused your parent poster of not thinking critically, instead of constructively saying "hey, here's a nuance of this issue that you may be missing".
      - clubm8 8y ago
        Sorry you feel that way. We've now twice addressed this issue, concerns have been noted. Unfortunately I lack the ability to edit or delete the post, so I assure your concerns are noted and consider the matter closed.
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
The rule about no expectation of privacy in public places need to be understood in context. If everybody movements are tracked, indexed and published on the Internet where people can look you up, is that acceptable? If all our conversations are treated in the same way? At what point the panopticon becomes incompatible with democracy and freedom?
monocasa 8y ago
It's way more complicated than that. The courts have repeatedly struck down constant automated surveillance from public views. For instance: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-nailed-webcam-to-utility-pole-for-6-weeks-to-spy-on-house/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-n...

>A streetlight by definition has public view of a street. No expectation of privacy. This norm was established when it would have required the police to station a human outside your home. Have you considered thinking critically about the impacts of surveillance technology, rather than reciting quotes from 6th grade social studies absent any introspection?

twblalock 8y ago
> Have you considered thinking critically about the impacts of surveillance technology, rather than reciting quotes from 6th grade social studies absent any introspection? Have you considered not being rude and insulting? People who think critically about surveillance have a wide range of views on the topic.
- clubm8 8y ago
  >Have you considered not being rude and insulting? I'm sorry you feel that way, I didn't mean for you to feel insulted. >People who think critically about surveillance have a wide range of views on the topic. Reciting the law is an act of recall, not exposition.
DenisM 8y ago
> Have you considered thinking critically ... rather than reciting quotes from 6th grade social studies absent any introspection. This is in violation of HN guideline: "Don't be snarky" [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- clubm8 8y ago
  I disagree. Do you have any specific feedback on the content of my post, rather than the tone?
  - InitialLastName 8y ago
    GP is citing to you an actual HN guideline that specifically refers to the tone of your post. If it helps, here's the guideline in full: > Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. > Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. In your case, you accused your parent poster of not thinking critically, instead of constructively saying "hey, here's a nuance of this issue that you may be missing".
    - clubm8 8y ago
      Sorry you feel that way. We've now twice addressed this issue, concerns have been noted. Unfortunately I lack the ability to edit or delete the post, so I assure your concerns are noted and consider the matter closed.

eeZah7Ux 8y ago

The rule about no expectation of privacy in public places need to be understood in context. If everybody movements are tracked, indexed and published on the Internet where people can look you up, is that acceptable? If all our conversations are treated in the same way? At what point the panopticon becomes incompatible with democracy and freedom?

monocasa 8y ago

It's way more complicated than that. The courts have repeatedly struck down constant automated surveillance from public views. For instance: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-nailed-webcam-to-utility-pole-for-6-weeks-to-spy-on-house/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-n...