4 ms·
I agree it does come off as extreme, but I can understand the desire to provide society with some reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space when someo
by ajcp 5y ago
I agree it does come off as extreme, but I can understand the desire to provide society with some reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space when someone might no longer be able to consent to being in public.
Sure, it's part of the inherent risk calculation when we venture out or interact with public space, but at the same time if I can no longer remove myself from that space when I want to achieve some privacy I think it's reasonable that society change the context of the space. At that point I would think that laws pertaining to the violation of privacy (like those regarding peeping-toms) should apply.
That being said, and going back to the "no longer consent to being in public", what about drunks, or children who cannot legally exercise consent? There's a million ways this can get very hazy very fast.
- detaro 5y agoReasonable expectation of privacy applies by default to photos in public in Germany (with exceptions at events, public interest/press, ...).
- Jiocus 5y agoYou're making a great point here, that I've never heard before in the debate. Not only in the specific issue of the article, but public life in general. I think the argument is that drunks did consent, in the same spirit as a drunk driver carry a responsibility. Still, going too far might be harassment. Guardians are responsible for making choices for minors until they can make those choices themselves.