3 ms·

> Is there any reasonable sense to privacy at that point? Yes there is. This data is mined without reasonable suspicion, and shared with all parties, including

> Is there any reasonable sense to privacy at that point? Yes there is. This data is mined without reasonable suspicion, and shared with all parties, including contractors (commercial companies). Surveillance without suspicion, storing such data indefinately, is chilling to free speech, opposed to protections against unreasonable searches, makes it more difficult to associate and practice one's religion. People with no intention to commit crimes are in jail or have a record, because they decided to joke among friends, and had just a bit too big exposure, and just too little context. In the Netherlands you may get a house visit from the police if you tweet critical of the town mayor or tweet about protests (of course, they label it "threats" and "inciting civil unrest")

closeparen 8y ago
Does reading, saving, and sharing newspaper articles violate the privacy of the journalists who write them? Public content is public.
- princeofwands 8y ago
  A telling association fallacy. Unlike Zuck, I pose that Privacy is not dead. It starts to smell funny though. Of course, I am a realist: Police Officers are using Google Earth to look in the walled gardens of suspicious civilians. It is public data. So if you are already resigning to big data surveillance without reasonable suspicion, then it will only take a few decades before we all move in public under the watchful gaze of a gazillion drones. The erosion has already started with these highly funded real-name real-face social networks. No fun being the target of surveillance without suspicion, because it increases the chance of bad things happening to you. Nearly everyone breaks the law at times: drive 3 km/h too fast to catch the green light, consume illegal drugs, feed the homeless, download from a torrent, create street art, take home a pen from work, hack a website. And the suspicion may come from following "Edward Snowden" on Twitter, or posting on HackerNews about malware, or being the Facebook nephew/schoolmate of a drug dealing suspect, or walking past a smart billboard in a Che Guevara t-shirt. The Chinese Social Credit system pales in comparison to a society that is too afraid to use its free speech, too afraid to associate with like-minded people, and too afraid to participate in a political movement that is ahead of its time (such as the Civil Rights Movement), because an AI with the power of over 9000 cops is watching your every move outside of the bedroom (if curtains closed. and public internet cut off. and not transmitting "public is public" heat waves). Right now, the police is tasking commercial companies to map Facebook friend connections into networks and passes this on to social workers, so they can confront particular youth if they start hanging out with non-motivated teenagers who hang on the street all day. All is meant well, but this gives me the creeps. We did not have to deal with this in the 90s, but we also hung out on the street or, god forbid, on a skateboard. Let's keep Privacy alive for a few more years, legal and regulations move slowly. Read up on FBI vs. civil rights movement 50 years ago, and ask yourself, has technology or the Justice system of the US moved faster? "Public content is public" combined with a tremendous rise in AI technology seems like a recipe for a disasterous dystopia. Or is that the plot of Demolition Man?
craftyguy 8y ago
> This data is mined without reasonable suspicion Uh, no. If you post a billboard on the side of the road or hang a letter on a public bulletin board, anyone can freely quote it, take a picture of it, or read it and tell others about it. If you post something on a public internet website, anyone can freely quote it, take a picture of it (err, screenshot), or read it and tell others about it. There's no difference. Public is public is public.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- diafygi 8y ago
  I think the parent comment is pointing out that the government is supposed to be prohibited from collecting information unless it needs to (e.g. reasonable suspicion), no matter if it's public or not. Specifically, in the U.S., the Supreme Court confirmed that public data can still be protected by a warrant if used to compose a "mosaic" of something within a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States So, could a private company follow you around and read every tweet you post publicly? Yes. Could a government do the same without a warrant (or even ask the company to give the information to them)? No. The restriction is on the government, not the data. I guess in Europe, now with the GDPR, this restriction also falls on companies, too.
chopin 8y ago
>In the Netherlands you may get a house visit from the police if you tweet critical of the town mayor or tweet about protests (of course, they label it "threats" and "inciting civil unrest") Do you have citations for this? I never heard of that (I have relatives in the Netherlands). I assume this would land rather quickly at the ECHR.
- princeofwands 8y ago
  https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/01/20/u-twittert-wel-heel-veel-zei-de-politie-1578392-a269897 https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/01/20/u-twittert-wel-heel-vee... Tweet: "The city council of Sliedrecht proposes to accept 250 refugees in the next 2 years. What a bad plan! #Resist" Result: Police visits his mother's house asking for him, after which they visit his work address and sit him down: "You sure Tweet a lot. We have received orders to ask you to watch your tone. Your tweets may be construed as incitement." Especially for opponents to immigration, the Dutch police has a special unit and visits lots of homes, either for Tweets or for maintaining a Facebook page about the subject. Currently the focus is on stopping any Yellow Vest protests from taking root in Holland. Police: "We want civilians to be aware of the effects a post or Tweet on the internet can have in real life. We monitor Tweets and act if we feel these go 'too far'". Facebook post on own timeline about a plan to host 1.200 immigrants in a town with 16.600 inhabitants: "Let them fuck off, these assholes. We will all go to the town hall." Police visits home: "You are inciting an illegal demonstration. We demand you remove the post to avoid further trouble.". Teacher tweeting about the terrorist attacks against Jews in Belgium: "How can you address this serious topic in class, when you have Muslim students that loudly cheer this on?". 3 Police men knock on door 4 hours later: "We are here ordered by the mayor. They were scared senseless at the town house, but don't you think we have better things to do, no? Do you realize that your tweet can also attract believers that want to do you harm, and can find you, just like we found you? Identify yourself." Mayor after Streisand Effect: "I did not order anything, and this entire situation sucks. I am sorry and called him to apologize. I am 100% for freedom of speech. Internally, the last word about this drama has not been spoken.". https://www.bndestem.nl/nieuws/excuses-burgemeester-depla-na-politieactie-na-tweet-over-applaudisserende-moslimkinderen~a586b27f/ https://www.bndestem.nl/nieuws/excuses-burgemeester-depla-na... Other examples with police visits: > LAST CALL!!!! Everyone who is done with taking in more profiteers, especially because our grandfathers and grandmothers can't receive proper care. [...] Do not let them play you for a fool, but stand up for your country, and come to the market next Monday at 19:00!!!!!!! > 19th of January the council will discuss accommodating 250 refugees in the next two years. We won't let this happen?! > Raided by police. My god. Had to hand over our mobile phones. Asked if we had Telegram and if one could search for pictures with us wearing a neon-colored outfit (don't dare say the word).

closeparen 8y ago

Does reading, saving, and sharing newspaper articles violate the privacy of the journalists who write them? Public content is public.

princeofwands 8y ago
A telling association fallacy. Unlike Zuck, I pose that Privacy is not dead. It starts to smell funny though. Of course, I am a realist: Police Officers are using Google Earth to look in the walled gardens of suspicious civilians. It is public data. So if you are already resigning to big data surveillance without reasonable suspicion, then it will only take a few decades before we all move in public under the watchful gaze of a gazillion drones. The erosion has already started with these highly funded real-name real-face social networks. No fun being the target of surveillance without suspicion, because it increases the chance of bad things happening to you. Nearly everyone breaks the law at times: drive 3 km/h too fast to catch the green light, consume illegal drugs, feed the homeless, download from a torrent, create street art, take home a pen from work, hack a website. And the suspicion may come from following "Edward Snowden" on Twitter, or posting on HackerNews about malware, or being the Facebook nephew/schoolmate of a drug dealing suspect, or walking past a smart billboard in a Che Guevara t-shirt. The Chinese Social Credit system pales in comparison to a society that is too afraid to use its free speech, too afraid to associate with like-minded people, and too afraid to participate in a political movement that is ahead of its time (such as the Civil Rights Movement), because an AI with the power of over 9000 cops is watching your every move outside of the bedroom (if curtains closed. and public internet cut off. and not transmitting "public is public" heat waves). Right now, the police is tasking commercial companies to map Facebook friend connections into networks and passes this on to social workers, so they can confront particular youth if they start hanging out with non-motivated teenagers who hang on the street all day. All is meant well, but this gives me the creeps. We did not have to deal with this in the 90s, but we also hung out on the street or, god forbid, on a skateboard. Let's keep Privacy alive for a few more years, legal and regulations move slowly. Read up on FBI vs. civil rights movement 50 years ago, and ask yourself, has technology or the Justice system of the US moved faster? "Public content is public" combined with a tremendous rise in AI technology seems like a recipe for a disasterous dystopia. Or is that the plot of Demolition Man?

craftyguy 8y ago

> This data is mined without reasonable suspicion Uh, no. If you post a billboard on the side of the road or hang a letter on a public bulletin board, anyone can freely quote it, take a picture of it, or read it and tell others about it. If you post something on a public internet website, anyone can freely quote it, take a picture of it (err, screenshot), or read it and tell others about it. There's no difference. Public is public is public.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
diafygi 8y ago
I think the parent comment is pointing out that the government is supposed to be prohibited from collecting information unless it needs to (e.g. reasonable suspicion), no matter if it's public or not. Specifically, in the U.S., the Supreme Court confirmed that public data can still be protected by a warrant if used to compose a "mosaic" of something within a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States So, could a private company follow you around and read every tweet you post publicly? Yes. Could a government do the same without a warrant (or even ask the company to give the information to them)? No. The restriction is on the government, not the data. I guess in Europe, now with the GDPR, this restriction also falls on companies, too.

chopin 8y ago

>In the Netherlands you may get a house visit from the police if you tweet critical of the town mayor or tweet about protests (of course, they label it "threats" and "inciting civil unrest") Do you have citations for this? I never heard of that (I have relatives in the Netherlands). I assume this would land rather quickly at the ECHR.

princeofwands 8y ago
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/01/20/u-twittert-wel-heel-veel-zei-de-politie-1578392-a269897 https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/01/20/u-twittert-wel-heel-vee... Tweet: "The city council of Sliedrecht proposes to accept 250 refugees in the next 2 years. What a bad plan! #Resist" Result: Police visits his mother's house asking for him, after which they visit his work address and sit him down: "You sure Tweet a lot. We have received orders to ask you to watch your tone. Your tweets may be construed as incitement." Especially for opponents to immigration, the Dutch police has a special unit and visits lots of homes, either for Tweets or for maintaining a Facebook page about the subject. Currently the focus is on stopping any Yellow Vest protests from taking root in Holland. Police: "We want civilians to be aware of the effects a post or Tweet on the internet can have in real life. We monitor Tweets and act if we feel these go 'too far'". Facebook post on own timeline about a plan to host 1.200 immigrants in a town with 16.600 inhabitants: "Let them fuck off, these assholes. We will all go to the town hall." Police visits home: "You are inciting an illegal demonstration. We demand you remove the post to avoid further trouble.". Teacher tweeting about the terrorist attacks against Jews in Belgium: "How can you address this serious topic in class, when you have Muslim students that loudly cheer this on?". 3 Police men knock on door 4 hours later: "We are here ordered by the mayor. They were scared senseless at the town house, but don't you think we have better things to do, no? Do you realize that your tweet can also attract believers that want to do you harm, and can find you, just like we found you? Identify yourself." Mayor after Streisand Effect: "I did not order anything, and this entire situation sucks. I am sorry and called him to apologize. I am 100% for freedom of speech. Internally, the last word about this drama has not been spoken.". https://www.bndestem.nl/nieuws/excuses-burgemeester-depla-na-politieactie-na-tweet-over-applaudisserende-moslimkinderen~a586b27f/ https://www.bndestem.nl/nieuws/excuses-burgemeester-depla-na... Other examples with police visits: > LAST CALL!!!! Everyone who is done with taking in more profiteers, especially because our grandfathers and grandmothers can't receive proper care. [...] Do not let them play you for a fool, but stand up for your country, and come to the market next Monday at 19:00!!!!!!! > 19th of January the council will discuss accommodating 250 refugees in the next two years. We won't let this happen?! > Raided by police. My god. Had to hand over our mobile phones. Asked if we had Telegram and if one could search for pictures with us wearing a neon-colored outfit (don't dare say the word).