3 ms·

I don't see how you can have an expectation of privacy when moving through the street and entering / exiting buildings. How is this morally different than if a

I don't see how you can have an expectation of privacy when moving through the street and entering / exiting buildings. How is this morally different than if a busybody lived across the street from PP and make a habit of keeping an eye on the door so (she?) could gossip about her observations at book club. This behavior is most certainly rude, but legal. It seems strange to argue this is immoral but hold the underlying crimes being recorded as immoral. The anti-reporting stance seems to be a veiled argument that the entire law is illegitimate.

DanBC 6y ago
> I don't see how you can have an expectation of privacy when moving through the street and entering / exiting buildings. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3689049.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3689049.stm > Miss Campbell had objected to the publication of pictures of her leaving drug addiction treatment in early 2001. > Lord Hope, who voted in favour of Miss Campbell, said on Thursday: "Despite the weight that must be given to the right to freedom of expression that the press needs if it is to play its role effectively, I would hold that there was here an infringement of Miss Campbell's right to privacy that cannot be justified." (This is about fees, but contains links and references to the previous cases) https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1255.html&query=(naomi)+AND+(campbell) https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/eu/cases/ECHR...
devchix 6y ago
I'm not litigating to redline pockets of public space. The first principle I'm arguing from is that our pasts should be palimpsests which should be allowed to recede with time further into the past. Imagine a terrible argument you had with someone. Time passes, the wrong and hurt has attenuated, you have changed or he has changed and you've both forgotten a bit. You could be friends again if you wanted. Now imagine that fight preserved in text. You both can read it again and remember exactly what terrible things have been said. Now imagine you have a visual and audio recording of the fight, and you can feel the wounds anew. There exists this constant inescapable reminder. You make the comparison to the busybody, I think that comparison is wrong because of the scale. At one time lending books, musics, was not anything publishers would concern themselves about, because one could only loan a copy to one person at a time. Digital copies changed the act of distribution. The recording camera preserves the image more permanently than the busybody ever could, and the vector of distribution is incomparable. I think the limits of our memories makes us human. Of all the criticisms launched at Zuckerberg, I think the most unfair one is that in his twenties, he said something like, "They trust me, the idiots!" He's a significant figure unlike you or me, but imagine saying or doing something monumentally stupid in your twenties and having it follow you the rest of your life and that's the first thing someone knows about you.

DanBC 6y ago

> I don't see how you can have an expectation of privacy when moving through the street and entering / exiting buildings. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3689049.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3689049.stm > Miss Campbell had objected to the publication of pictures of her leaving drug addiction treatment in early 2001. > Lord Hope, who voted in favour of Miss Campbell, said on Thursday: "Despite the weight that must be given to the right to freedom of expression that the press needs if it is to play its role effectively, I would hold that there was here an infringement of Miss Campbell's right to privacy that cannot be justified." (This is about fees, but contains links and references to the previous cases) https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1255.html&query=(naomi)+AND+(campbell) https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/eu/cases/ECHR...

devchix 6y ago

I'm not litigating to redline pockets of public space. The first principle I'm arguing from is that our pasts should be palimpsests which should be allowed to recede with time further into the past. Imagine a terrible argument you had with someone. Time passes, the wrong and hurt has attenuated, you have changed or he has changed and you've both forgotten a bit. You could be friends again if you wanted. Now imagine that fight preserved in text. You both can read it again and remember exactly what terrible things have been said. Now imagine you have a visual and audio recording of the fight, and you can feel the wounds anew. There exists this constant inescapable reminder. You make the comparison to the busybody, I think that comparison is wrong because of the scale. At one time lending books, musics, was not anything publishers would concern themselves about, because one could only loan a copy to one person at a time. Digital copies changed the act of distribution. The recording camera preserves the image more permanently than the busybody ever could, and the vector of distribution is incomparable. I think the limits of our memories makes us human. Of all the criticisms launched at Zuckerberg, I think the most unfair one is that in his twenties, he said something like, "They trust me, the idiots!" He's a significant figure unlike you or me, but imagine saying or doing something monumentally stupid in your twenties and having it follow you the rest of your life and that's the first thing someone knows about you.