2 ms·

If we consider laws around privacy in meatspace, then here's the common dividing line (according to my memory of an information law class I took something like

If we consider laws around privacy in meatspace, then here's the common dividing line (according to my memory of an information law class I took something like eight years ago): If someone is in a public space (such as a park) and you take a photograph for instance that happens to include them in it, then you're not violating their privacy. If they're in their home and you photograph them through their window, that is a violation of privacy because there's a legal expectation of privacy in a private residence. People are going into the digital equivalent of a park and getting upset when data collection happens there which happens to include them. What happens with that data (selling to advertisers, etc) is not really relevant to the legal privacy discussion. They gave away their data by participating in a public space. It's sort of like if some organization running public CCTV systems decided to sell recordings of public spaces they covered to advertisers (or heck, even data extracted from those recordings using facial recognition). Creepy? Sure. But not a violation of privacy as such since there is no legal expectation of privacy in a public space. (Incidentally, I'm not sure about the legal details of this specific example, but the point is privacy is dependent on location) The conclusion, then, is that people who care about legal protection of their privacy online should own the platform where they communicate, such as by hosting a Diaspora pod.

evgen 8y ago
If you go into a park and take a picture of the park that has a person standing in the distance and then sell that picture then you have committed no crime. If you follow someone around the park constantly taking their picture and then decide to sell the ones that look the best without either the permission of nor compensation for the subject of your photo then they have a legitimate claim against you. People are not getting upset that they are being photographed in the park by someone who is an enthusiast about outdoor architecture and park planning, they are getting upset that the digital paparazzi are recording every footfall and selling it without permission. The idea that this data collection is not something that can or should be regulated is perverse and thankfully the general public is coming around to this viewpoint.
- indigochill 8y ago
  >The idea that this data collection is not something that can or should be regulated is perverse and thankfully the general public is coming around to this viewpoint. A while ago I would have agreed, but as I've watched the progress of data legislation, I've come under the impression that it's flawed in at least two significant ways: 1. Companies lobby for laws that favor them. Sooner or later, they win. And then they spend those winnings to ensure they keep winning (some numbers on the top political contributions from electronics/communications companies: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B). 2. Enforcement is never going to result in jail time. It's going to appear as fines, serving as a mere cost of doing business which results in further entrenching existing companies against newcomers who can't afford the risks. People right now are excited about greater legislation because they think it will divert us from the cyberpunk dystopia of megacorps owning the world. But the trend I'm picking up from the current legal battles is that they're actually hastening it by pushing for legislation which those same companies will get to shape the details of. Thus, the solution I see is not greater legislation (which also implies greater centralization, thus more winner-takes-all for companies and governments), but greater decentralization and personal ownership. Legislation sounds good now, but in the long run it's a trap.

evgen 8y ago

If you go into a park and take a picture of the park that has a person standing in the distance and then sell that picture then you have committed no crime. If you follow someone around the park constantly taking their picture and then decide to sell the ones that look the best without either the permission of nor compensation for the subject of your photo then they have a legitimate claim against you. People are not getting upset that they are being photographed in the park by someone who is an enthusiast about outdoor architecture and park planning, they are getting upset that the digital paparazzi are recording every footfall and selling it without permission. The idea that this data collection is not something that can or should be regulated is perverse and thankfully the general public is coming around to this viewpoint.

indigochill 8y ago
>The idea that this data collection is not something that can or should be regulated is perverse and thankfully the general public is coming around to this viewpoint. A while ago I would have agreed, but as I've watched the progress of data legislation, I've come under the impression that it's flawed in at least two significant ways: 1. Companies lobby for laws that favor them. Sooner or later, they win. And then they spend those winnings to ensure they keep winning (some numbers on the top political contributions from electronics/communications companies: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B). 2. Enforcement is never going to result in jail time. It's going to appear as fines, serving as a mere cost of doing business which results in further entrenching existing companies against newcomers who can't afford the risks. People right now are excited about greater legislation because they think it will divert us from the cyberpunk dystopia of megacorps owning the world. But the trend I'm picking up from the current legal battles is that they're actually hastening it by pushing for legislation which those same companies will get to shape the details of. Thus, the solution I see is not greater legislation (which also implies greater centralization, thus more winner-takes-all for companies and governments), but greater decentralization and personal ownership. Legislation sounds good now, but in the long run it's a trap.