4 ms·

Can the case be made that recording in public is a right (as if always should be) but trying to track where everyone is at every point of time is stalking at a

Can the case be made that recording in public is a right (as if always should be) but trying to track where everyone is at every point of time is stalking at a mass scale which should be illegal as stalking on a one to one scale is illegal? For reference this is what one site (findlaw) has given as what constitutes the crime of stalking: The crime of stalking can be simply described as the unwanted pursuit of another person. Examples of this type of behavior includes following a person, appearing at a person's home or place of business, making harassing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing a person's property.

travisporter 6y ago
This sentiment exactly. Sure the information is free. But to find my property records, phone number, and "aggregate them" like Spokeo, fastpeoplefinder and similar sites, is akin to digital stalking IMO
- filoleg 6y ago
  Maybe I am wrong and my take is too simplistic/naive (as I admit, I haven't thought too much about this topic), but imo aggregating publicly available data shouldn't count as stalking. Acting on that data in a way that could be constituted as "stalking" definitely is real stalking though and should count as a crime. For example, if someone's ex (who was explicitly warned that he was unwelcome) continues showing up at the doorsteps because they remembered your address from a long time ago, then it is stalking. Them knowing the address isn't. In light of this, I don't see how it matters whether they remembered the address from past experiences or just found it through a website that aggregates publicly available info. As long as the data was obtained legally and without breaking any other harassment clauses, why would just the knowledge of something be a crime? I see it just like firearms. Having a firearm (in a lot of US jurisdictions) is not a crime, as long as it was obtained legally. Doing harmful actions with it (such as threatening people or shooting someone who didn't pose a threat to your life) is a crime. Having a firearm feels like just having data, in this scenario. As long as you don't use that data for criminal actions, why would just the potential of you being able to do something criminal with that data is a crime?
amelius 6y ago
> The crime of stalking can be simply described as the unwanted pursuit of another person. Examples of this type of behavior includes following a person, appearing at a person's home or place of business, making harassing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing a person's property. Except for the last point, that sounds like ads :)
- josephorjoe 6y ago
  ads vandalize property by causing unwanted images to appear on and unwanted sounds to emit from personal property
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    Vandalism usually means permanent damage. You can call the police on your neighbor for playing loud music at 3 am, but I don't think it would be correct to accuse them of vandalizing your property.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Is a highway billboard vandalism when the owner of that billboard is allowing the ad? Or are you referencing computers with ads in them (websites, etc.)? By that definition, anything disproving a conspiracy theorist is vandalism to them. That’s not how that works.

travisporter 6y ago

This sentiment exactly. Sure the information is free. But to find my property records, phone number, and "aggregate them" like Spokeo, fastpeoplefinder and similar sites, is akin to digital stalking IMO

filoleg 6y ago
Maybe I am wrong and my take is too simplistic/naive (as I admit, I haven't thought too much about this topic), but imo aggregating publicly available data shouldn't count as stalking. Acting on that data in a way that could be constituted as "stalking" definitely is real stalking though and should count as a crime. For example, if someone's ex (who was explicitly warned that he was unwelcome) continues showing up at the doorsteps because they remembered your address from a long time ago, then it is stalking. Them knowing the address isn't. In light of this, I don't see how it matters whether they remembered the address from past experiences or just found it through a website that aggregates publicly available info. As long as the data was obtained legally and without breaking any other harassment clauses, why would just the knowledge of something be a crime? I see it just like firearms. Having a firearm (in a lot of US jurisdictions) is not a crime, as long as it was obtained legally. Doing harmful actions with it (such as threatening people or shooting someone who didn't pose a threat to your life) is a crime. Having a firearm feels like just having data, in this scenario. As long as you don't use that data for criminal actions, why would just the potential of you being able to do something criminal with that data is a crime?

amelius 6y ago

> The crime of stalking can be simply described as the unwanted pursuit of another person. Examples of this type of behavior includes following a person, appearing at a person's home or place of business, making harassing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing a person's property. Except for the last point, that sounds like ads :)

josephorjoe 6y ago
ads vandalize property by causing unwanted images to appear on and unwanted sounds to emit from personal property
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Vandalism usually means permanent damage. You can call the police on your neighbor for playing loud music at 3 am, but I don't think it would be correct to accuse them of vandalizing your property.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  Is a highway billboard vandalism when the owner of that billboard is allowing the ad? Or are you referencing computers with ads in them (websites, etc.)? By that definition, anything disproving a conspiracy theorist is vandalism to them. That’s not how that works.