5 ms·
Without explicit consent? Yes. When you visit a website or a brick and mortar store, outside of security monitoring most reasonable people have no accepted expe
by badrabbit 6y ago
Without explicit consent? Yes. When you visit a website or a brick and mortar store, outside of security monitoring most reasonable people have no accepted expectation of their activity being monitored and analyzed for purposes unrelated to the transaction they are attempting to complete.
Most privacy issues boil down to consent.
1) Explicit consent must be granted by users for all groups of data collection or mining for which any significant portion of people have not granted implicit consent
2) Lack of consent should not be used as a reason to deny service, except if the service directly depends on the collected data to fuction.
> Let's say that we are building the infrastructure in a city, if we had stats on what streets have daily traffic jams, that would tell us a lot about the behavior of the people, but would also allow us to better direct traffic and reduce those issues.
Drivers that want to help reduce traffic jams should opt in by a sticker or some other solution. But to be honest a simple count+location is something I implicitly give consent for. If a person sits byba roadside counting cars I have no problem with it. The problem is when they record video,images or collect identifying information such as color,make/model,etc... Then I no longer give implicit consent.
To be extreme, blowing up the road also solves traffic jams, the solution should come with requirements such as keep the road intact and don't stalk people.
- XCSme 6y agoCurrently, in the examples given (brick and mortar stores, city infrastructure) analytics are heavily used without any consent. The common sense and law now is that there is little privacy on a public property (eg. you go outside, others have the right to film you), and websites are also "public" properties (the big difference is that you access them from the privacy on your own home). You think that the law should be changed? But again, where do we draw the line. Should a criminal give consent for his murder to be included in the "yearly homicides" statistic?
- badrabbit 6y agoYou are telling me how things are, I stated how they should be. A criminal should give their consent if it is information otherwise considered private. A simple count of crimes by the police is implied. You draw the line when identifying information is collected and that individuals that are identified have not implicitly granted consent. If you are not sure, ask for consent Let me use another analogy: If I am unsure a person has granted me permission to have sex with them, I should ask for consent. If I am unsure that they are of sound mind at the time, I wait until I am sure. This is far from rape but the principle is the same. If you are unsure ask for consent. If you are not sure murderers mind counting of their crimes ask for consent (I think they'd love the publicity, I would personally be sure consent is implied). Also, yes the law should be changed but we are talking ethics not law here,right?
- wolco 6y agoComing out and asking for sex or if consent is given might be culturely inappropiate for many. A common approach is to slowly work up to that point using body language to signal intent to proceed to the next level. On your other point collecting publically available information is legal now.. changing the law to require permission now brings in ownership. Who can grant permission.. should wildlife or objects be afforded the same protections?
- badrabbit 6y agoWildlife and objects can't give consent. We are talking ethics not law. The law allows a lot of unethical things. But if it were a law a lot would be determined by precedent , but some framework to criminally prosecute individuap and corporate stalkers would be great.
- XCSme 6y ago> most reasonable people have no accepted expectation of their activity being monitored In the case of stores, they still need analytics in order to know the volume of each type of products sold in order to restock efficiently and bring in enough for everyone, right? Do you think it's unethical for them to rearrange the products such that you find easier something that you might like? What about rearranging them to make you walk more in order to get what you want, so that you see more products overall?
- badrabbit 6y agoI don't care what the stores need, I am paying for goods and services with money, period. They can rearrange products or do whatever else they need to do after asking people for consent. Funny thing, most people will let you do a lot if you just ask. The problem is you think you shouldn't have to ask for permission to stalk people. It's stalking when the person you follow around does not want to be followed around. If they do, then you may happily call it analytics. I would personally spend hours at walmart tha have walmart track me in their stores as i move about, as a courtesy to their paying customer and to be decent ethical human beings they should allow my exclusion or opt-out of that program. This is all financially and technologically practical, the question is will you live without the extra profits generated by unwilling participants in your scheme?