3 ms·
> any information concerning you as a person belongs to yourself. Any diversion needs active consent But in the US that isn't true even outside of the internet
by soared 8y ago
> any information concerning you as a person belongs to yourself. Any diversion needs active consent
But in the US that isn't true even outside of the internet. If you walk outside of your home/land, I can legally photograph and record video of you. I can write down what you're wearing, make assumptions about your income based on your address, record you gender/age/etc. All of that is 100% legal - you willingly give up information about yourself when you go to public places.
You could argue the internet is not a public space but that counters most pro-privacy people's opinions on free speech/etc online.
- bduerst 8y agoExactly. What if I remember seeing you somewhere? Do I need to forget that information if you ask me to, because it's information about you and you own it?
- gcb0 8y agoand where do you draw the line when moving from real world example to digital? watching tv at home and netflix tracking everything about you? alexa being actively used in your home to check the weather? alexa and LG tvs passively listening in your home? and reporting back all the offline media you play? google tracking what you search in your property (devices) in incognoto mode? you using a mobile device that is technically owned by the wireless provider for another 11mo?
- JohnFen 8y ago> you willingly give up information about yourself when you go to public places. No, I really don't. I just can't do anything about it. I would agree with some form of this "implied consent" argument if going outside were an optional activity, but it's not.
- soared 8y agoI'm not sure I understand your point, but I don't think going online is an optional activity either.
- JohnFen 8y agoI'm not willingly giving up any information by being in a public space, because I don't have any choice about being in public spaces. Any information people gain about me is being taken, not given freely. > I don't think going online is an optional activity either. I think that can be debated, but let's say you're right: that just reinforces my point. My essential point is that the "public space" argument isn't terribly meaningful. Actual consent can only be given in the absence of coercion. If being surveilled is a requirement in order to simply function as a human being, then consent doesn't enter into it. And, in my view, all of the arguments about privacy and spying hinge on the issue of consent. If data is being gathered about me without my consent, then I'm being spied on.