3 ms·

>It's not a "long-standing norm", it's a fundamental right In the U.S., anonymity is a "fundamental right" only in certain circumstances and it differs by stat

>It's not a "long-standing norm", it's a fundamental right In the U.S., anonymity is a "fundamental right" only in certain circumstances and it differs by state. It's not a blanket right. >Even in small towns and villages people had privacy inside their houses, farms etc. This is still a thing if you choose it.

close04 7y ago
> This is still a thing That's debatable, someone can legally "park" a drone above your back yard or in front of a window and the only legal thing you can do is to shield your life behind a non-transparent medium (board your windows). Someone can legally access your private data coming from ISPs, mobile operators, any number of devices in your house, etc. and the only legal thing you can do is cut yourself off from all of those services that admittedly are more or less a requirement for modern life. The examples can continue. Saying "if you choose it" doesn't do it justice, the choice comes with severe and likely unreasonable sacrifices relative to what society offers and expects/demands these days.
- 0xBA5ED 7y ago
  Now we're talking about the internet. When you get online, you're entering a public space. Being physically inside your house at the time is irrelevant IMO. You don't have to buy smart appliances either. Or apps to control your lights. Use light switches. You CAN still choose to be private in your home. Regarding the drone example, even if technically legal, I seriously doubt a person parking their drone like that would get away with it for long. It would be a scandal. "Local man parks his camera drone over people's houses! Insists it's legal!"
  - close04 7y ago
    Actually my comment was explicitly referring to both physical and virtual worlds, especially since OP's comment was mostly about the real world. I didn't mean specifically that you are inside the house when using the internet, rather that you lost your privacy no matter which channel you use. The fact that you have to choose between not using internet or mobile phone (both relatively critical in this day and age), or implicitly give a private company the right to use your (meta)data in any way they see fit is basically an admission that privacy is not enforced, it's taken away from you. In the past nobody logged all of your physical visits around the city, and certainly not at any substantial scale, so the topic never made sense even if you were crossing public space. You can't judge the present by the laws made for the past. You don't just have the right to bear a musket because that's what existed when the Constitution was written. So privacy should refer to the principle, not the actual mechanism and implementation. Drone related, things are more nuanced. The drone may be in my back yard but filming in yours no matter how tall your fence. And unlike a real person hovering around your house, a drone operator is anonymous for all intents and purposes. Unlike a real person, a drone or (hidden) cameras throughout a city can be out of sight but "remembering" everything. You don't have to get away with it for long. The fact that you can get away with it once is enough of an open door. Once here, once there, and pretty soon your phone collecting every piece of private information about you and sending it out is perfectly acceptable.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  > drone Not in my country and I would imagine that you may be allowed to shoot that tin can down in the US. But legislation is both easy and effective. There is a huge difference for privacy if compromising information is legally obtained or not. Sure, some will ignore it that can be addressed separately. Again, legislation would be extremely easy. ISPs can use your data because it isn't legislated otherwise. But even there are limits and not all information can be legally accessed. A solution would be to use the network of your neighbor, but I am sure we wouldn't want to escalate this problem further.
  - close04 7y ago
    > I would imagine that you may be allowed to shoot that tin can down in the US This is the debatable part. The FAA considers drones to be aircraft—and under federal law, shooting at aircraft is a crime [0]. The devil's in the details of course. Such cases were usually dismissed because it means trying whether a drone is considered to be trespassing or not and no judge wants to touch this. The best precedent on this is from the 1946 States v. Causby when the Supreme Court ruled that a farmer in North Carolina could assert property rights up to 83 feet in the air. [1] Again, the law failed to keep up with the ever accelerating evolution of tech and the SC will probably have to weigh in on pretty much every topic soon, to tweak the interpretation of every outdated law. > information is legally obtained Which is why I said that it's not a real choice, not if you have to give up things that are considered more or less basic needs or requirements today. That's because most such information is obtained perfectly legally so there is no recourse. Internet tracking, real life face recognition at every step, all your devices collecting data on you, your "choice" is to pretty isolate yourself from society. Is it a realistic choice then? [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32 [1] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/328/256.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/328/256.html

close04 7y ago

> This is still a thing That's debatable, someone can legally "park" a drone above your back yard or in front of a window and the only legal thing you can do is to shield your life behind a non-transparent medium (board your windows). Someone can legally access your private data coming from ISPs, mobile operators, any number of devices in your house, etc. and the only legal thing you can do is cut yourself off from all of those services that admittedly are more or less a requirement for modern life. The examples can continue. Saying "if you choose it" doesn't do it justice, the choice comes with severe and likely unreasonable sacrifices relative to what society offers and expects/demands these days.

0xBA5ED 7y ago
Now we're talking about the internet. When you get online, you're entering a public space. Being physically inside your house at the time is irrelevant IMO. You don't have to buy smart appliances either. Or apps to control your lights. Use light switches. You CAN still choose to be private in your home. Regarding the drone example, even if technically legal, I seriously doubt a person parking their drone like that would get away with it for long. It would be a scandal. "Local man parks his camera drone over people's houses! Insists it's legal!"
- close04 7y ago
  Actually my comment was explicitly referring to both physical and virtual worlds, especially since OP's comment was mostly about the real world. I didn't mean specifically that you are inside the house when using the internet, rather that you lost your privacy no matter which channel you use. The fact that you have to choose between not using internet or mobile phone (both relatively critical in this day and age), or implicitly give a private company the right to use your (meta)data in any way they see fit is basically an admission that privacy is not enforced, it's taken away from you. In the past nobody logged all of your physical visits around the city, and certainly not at any substantial scale, so the topic never made sense even if you were crossing public space. You can't judge the present by the laws made for the past. You don't just have the right to bear a musket because that's what existed when the Constitution was written. So privacy should refer to the principle, not the actual mechanism and implementation. Drone related, things are more nuanced. The drone may be in my back yard but filming in yours no matter how tall your fence. And unlike a real person hovering around your house, a drone operator is anonymous for all intents and purposes. Unlike a real person, a drone or (hidden) cameras throughout a city can be out of sight but "remembering" everything. You don't have to get away with it for long. The fact that you can get away with it once is enough of an open door. Once here, once there, and pretty soon your phone collecting every piece of private information about you and sending it out is perfectly acceptable.
raxxorrax 7y ago
> drone Not in my country and I would imagine that you may be allowed to shoot that tin can down in the US. But legislation is both easy and effective. There is a huge difference for privacy if compromising information is legally obtained or not. Sure, some will ignore it that can be addressed separately. Again, legislation would be extremely easy. ISPs can use your data because it isn't legislated otherwise. But even there are limits and not all information can be legally accessed. A solution would be to use the network of your neighbor, but I am sure we wouldn't want to escalate this problem further.
- close04 7y ago
  > I would imagine that you may be allowed to shoot that tin can down in the US This is the debatable part. The FAA considers drones to be aircraft—and under federal law, shooting at aircraft is a crime [0]. The devil's in the details of course. Such cases were usually dismissed because it means trying whether a drone is considered to be trespassing or not and no judge wants to touch this. The best precedent on this is from the 1946 States v. Causby when the Supreme Court ruled that a farmer in North Carolina could assert property rights up to 83 feet in the air. [1] Again, the law failed to keep up with the ever accelerating evolution of tech and the SC will probably have to weigh in on pretty much every topic soon, to tweak the interpretation of every outdated law. > information is legally obtained Which is why I said that it's not a real choice, not if you have to give up things that are considered more or less basic needs or requirements today. That's because most such information is obtained perfectly legally so there is no recourse. Internet tracking, real life face recognition at every step, all your devices collecting data on you, your "choice" is to pretty isolate yourself from society. Is it a realistic choice then? [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32 [1] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/328/256.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/328/256.html