3 ms·

> "You have no expectation of privacy in your gait or heartbeat while walking in public." Well, yeah. What would gait privacy even mean? That the law would pro

> "You have no expectation of privacy in your gait or heartbeat while walking in public." Well, yeah. What would gait privacy even mean? That the law would prohibit you from using your eyes to notice that someone is walking a particular way? That's absurd.

harimau777 7y ago
The issue isn't a given person observing you, it's organized surveillance augmented by technology.
SilasX 7y ago
Okay, my original comment was probably more vague and snarky than HN deserves, so let me elaborate on my thoughts: 1) This will develop to the point that someone sues over this, but gets smacked down because it's based on publicly accessible information. 2) It underscores that current jurisprudence is out of line with our intuitions about what constitutes norm-violating invasions of privacy. 3) Yes, it would be absurd to expect others to shield themselves from noticing your gait. But the problem is, like with all the other things we don't have an expectation of privacy in, it feels a lot more invasive when it's collected by a machine and aggregated in the large and correlated with every other data point about you. Jurisprudence, in America, doesn't seem to have a language for capturing that and so doesn't recognize it. (Heartbeats, for that matter, are something humans don't directly observe by default in normal everyday encounters.)
Polylactic_acid 7y ago
The way you use data is taken in to consideration by the law. If I take a photo outside and you happen to be in it then thats legal. If I follow you around every day with a camera pointed at you then its not legal anymore even though its the same data.
- whoopdedo 7y ago
  > If I take a photo outside and you happen to be in it then thats legal. In the U.S. Other countries, however, have decided that private individuals should not be subjected to having their face stored in a permanent record without their consent. Thus the photographer is required to take the extra step of anonymizing the photo (e.g. by blurring faces) before publishing.

harimau777 7y ago

The issue isn't a given person observing you, it's organized surveillance augmented by technology.

SilasX 7y ago

Okay, my original comment was probably more vague and snarky than HN deserves, so let me elaborate on my thoughts: 1) This will develop to the point that someone sues over this, but gets smacked down because it's based on publicly accessible information. 2) It underscores that current jurisprudence is out of line with our intuitions about what constitutes norm-violating invasions of privacy. 3) Yes, it would be absurd to expect others to shield themselves from noticing your gait. But the problem is, like with all the other things we don't have an expectation of privacy in, it feels a lot more invasive when it's collected by a machine and aggregated in the large and correlated with every other data point about you. Jurisprudence, in America, doesn't seem to have a language for capturing that and so doesn't recognize it. (Heartbeats, for that matter, are something humans don't directly observe by default in normal everyday encounters.)

Polylactic_acid 7y ago

The way you use data is taken in to consideration by the law. If I take a photo outside and you happen to be in it then thats legal. If I follow you around every day with a camera pointed at you then its not legal anymore even though its the same data.

whoopdedo 7y ago
> If I take a photo outside and you happen to be in it then thats legal. In the U.S. Other countries, however, have decided that private individuals should not be subjected to having their face stored in a permanent record without their consent. Thus the photographer is required to take the extra step of anonymizing the photo (e.g. by blurring faces) before publishing.