6 ms·

I think the courts have ruled that it is perfectly legal to record somebody outside of their home as that is considered public spaces. Many cities are now movin

I think the courts have ruled that it is perfectly legal to record somebody outside of their home as that is considered public spaces. Many cities are now moving to embed cameras in street lights to deter and record crimes. I think that it is safe to assume that if you are outside, you are being recorded, either by a check point camera , a store’s security camera , streetlight camera or even your neighbor’s ring device. You should not have any expectation of privacy once you are outside the confines of your house.

colechristensen 6y ago
This has to stop.
- eznzt 6y ago
  Crime? True.
  - colechristensen 6y ago
    No, the presumption that it's acceptable to be recorded and tracked in public.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    Please read the HN guidelines, which discourage this sort of bait posting.
ada1981 6y ago
I don't know why this is downvoted. I thought the same thing. "Shoppers had no reason to expect their image was being collected by an inconspicuous camera, or that it would be used, with facial recognition technology, for analysis," said federal Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien in a statement. My default is the opposite, I expect I'm being tracked all the time and that my image, cell signal, and whatever else is being used to try and sell me stuff I don't need.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
voisin 6y ago
> You should not have any expectation of privacy once you are outside the confines of your house. My first reaction was “what a sad dystopian position.” But then I thought further and while I agree in general, I think “privacy” needs a bit more nuance to it. If you are outside should it be against the law to have a camera that films you for security? No I don’t think so. There is a reasonable expectation that business and home owners will have security cameras to protect their property. But in the case of filming you in order to monetize your likeness and shopping habits, I think this goes a step too far, and becomes broadly unacceptable as too intrusive. Should I only be able to retain my information (likeness, shopping habits) by hiding in my home? That’s the dystopian part.
m463 6y ago
There are laws that paparazzi have to abide by. Maybe they should be applied here?
- thatcat 6y ago
  Paparazzi actually operate under a more leinient set of rules because their subject has chosen to make themselves a public figure.
dylan604 6y ago
There are public spaces, and then there are private spaces open to the public. I fight this one all the time with a local park. It is a park that is not city owned public, but privately operated and open to the public. They have a very strict photography policy, and their "employees" will interfere with you if you do not have "permission". I believe shopping malls are private spaces open to the public. The point is that I would not be shocked to see that there are different rules regarding public spaces vs private spaces open to the public.
spinach 6y ago
What about bathrooms, changing rooms, hotel rooms, etc? No expectation for privacy since you aren't at home?
- sida 6y ago
  OP's argument would be that bathrooms, changing rooms, hotel rooms are examples of places with expectation of privacy. And if you are walking in the middle of a mall with lots of people around you, that would be an example where there is no expectation of privacy. -- OP argument put more simply, if you are in a bathroom, everyone expects that that is private. In fact bathrooms have doors and urinals have privacy screens. If you are taking your clothes off, a reasonable person expects to be private Whereas, in the middle of the mall where there are tons of people, there are surveillance cameras, and other people taking pictures of each other. That would be somewhere with no expectation of privacy
blato 6y ago
This "_you should not have any expectations of privacy in public_" argument dates back when there was no facial recognition. The idea was people can see you in the street, maybe exceptionally a wierdo would take a photo of you but nobody could find your identity back from that photo. In case of a crime in the street the police could exceptionally access surveillance cameras to investigate. That's it. This is what "no privacy in public" meant in 2000/2010, and I was totally fine with that. I was totally pro video surveillance at that time . Now we're in 2020 and facial recognition is happening. Everything changes. Today, taking the picture of someone = taking biometric data like fingerprint or DNA. This allows you to have a total control over that person. Law were made at a time when a cameras were not such devastating weapons. Everywhere you go, everything you eat, each item in the store you look at, each person you look at, heartbeat & stress level, which house you're at, who are you talking to, what did you bought, when, with who, what ads did you watch in the street, which part if the ads, with which emotion, we can find your identity, social posts, private data, health data, intimate message, browsing history, emotions, stress level, etc just by pointing a camera at you because of facial recognition. All this is anaylzed, sold and stored forever. We're getting in a dystopia the worst case-scenario dystopic sci-fi movie couldn't even imagine and people are like "nah we shouldn't expect privacy anyway ya know"...
- imgabe 6y ago
  > Today, taking the picture of someone = taking biometric data like fingerprint or DNA. This allows you to have a total control over that person. How does a picture grant total control? Let's say I have a picture of you right now. How do I use that picture to either force you to do something against your will, or prevent you from doing something?
  - blato 6y ago
    People are being detained & tortured because they've been recognised on footage of public demonstrations. Looking at China it's pretty clear how having a model of peoples face with facial recognition has been key for their total control of the population

colechristensen 6y ago

This has to stop.

eznzt 6y ago
Crime? True.
- colechristensen 6y ago
  No, the presumption that it's acceptable to be recorded and tracked in public.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  Please read the HN guidelines, which discourage this sort of bait posting.

ada1981 6y ago

I don't know why this is downvoted. I thought the same thing. "Shoppers had no reason to expect their image was being collected by an inconspicuous camera, or that it would be used, with facial recognition technology, for analysis," said federal Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien in a statement. My default is the opposite, I expect I'm being tracked all the time and that my image, cell signal, and whatever else is being used to try and sell me stuff I don't need.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

voisin 6y ago

> You should not have any expectation of privacy once you are outside the confines of your house. My first reaction was “what a sad dystopian position.” But then I thought further and while I agree in general, I think “privacy” needs a bit more nuance to it. If you are outside should it be against the law to have a camera that films you for security? No I don’t think so. There is a reasonable expectation that business and home owners will have security cameras to protect their property. But in the case of filming you in order to monetize your likeness and shopping habits, I think this goes a step too far, and becomes broadly unacceptable as too intrusive. Should I only be able to retain my information (likeness, shopping habits) by hiding in my home? That’s the dystopian part.

m463 6y ago

There are laws that paparazzi have to abide by. Maybe they should be applied here?

thatcat 6y ago
Paparazzi actually operate under a more leinient set of rules because their subject has chosen to make themselves a public figure.

dylan604 6y ago

There are public spaces, and then there are private spaces open to the public. I fight this one all the time with a local park. It is a park that is not city owned public, but privately operated and open to the public. They have a very strict photography policy, and their "employees" will interfere with you if you do not have "permission". I believe shopping malls are private spaces open to the public. The point is that I would not be shocked to see that there are different rules regarding public spaces vs private spaces open to the public.

spinach 6y ago

What about bathrooms, changing rooms, hotel rooms, etc? No expectation for privacy since you aren't at home?

sida 6y ago
OP's argument would be that bathrooms, changing rooms, hotel rooms are examples of places with expectation of privacy. And if you are walking in the middle of a mall with lots of people around you, that would be an example where there is no expectation of privacy. -- OP argument put more simply, if you are in a bathroom, everyone expects that that is private. In fact bathrooms have doors and urinals have privacy screens. If you are taking your clothes off, a reasonable person expects to be private Whereas, in the middle of the mall where there are tons of people, there are surveillance cameras, and other people taking pictures of each other. That would be somewhere with no expectation of privacy

blato 6y ago

This "_you should not have any expectations of privacy in public_" argument dates back when there was no facial recognition. The idea was people can see you in the street, maybe exceptionally a wierdo would take a photo of you but nobody could find your identity back from that photo. In case of a crime in the street the police could exceptionally access surveillance cameras to investigate. That's it. This is what "no privacy in public" meant in 2000/2010, and I was totally fine with that. I was totally pro video surveillance at that time . Now we're in 2020 and facial recognition is happening. Everything changes. Today, taking the picture of someone = taking biometric data like fingerprint or DNA. This allows you to have a total control over that person. Law were made at a time when a cameras were not such devastating weapons. Everywhere you go, everything you eat, each item in the store you look at, each person you look at, heartbeat & stress level, which house you're at, who are you talking to, what did you bought, when, with who, what ads did you watch in the street, which part if the ads, with which emotion, we can find your identity, social posts, private data, health data, intimate message, browsing history, emotions, stress level, etc just by pointing a camera at you because of facial recognition. All this is anaylzed, sold and stored forever. We're getting in a dystopia the worst case-scenario dystopic sci-fi movie couldn't even imagine and people are like "nah we shouldn't expect privacy anyway ya know"...

imgabe 6y ago
> Today, taking the picture of someone = taking biometric data like fingerprint or DNA. This allows you to have a total control over that person. How does a picture grant total control? Let's say I have a picture of you right now. How do I use that picture to either force you to do something against your will, or prevent you from doing something?
- blato 6y ago
  People are being detained & tortured because they've been recognised on footage of public demonstrations. Looking at China it's pretty clear how having a model of peoples face with facial recognition has been key for their total control of the population