4 ms·

How could it easily be restricted? As long as people or corporations are allowed to sell timestamped, geostamped photos and videos, the aggregation can be done.

rt4mn 5y ago
Just because something can be technically done does not mean that we cant impose restrictions that make it to costly to use except in the most constrained and extreme circumstances. This is an oversimplification of a complicated story, but a great example is when the NSA stopped doing mass phone / text analysis because of the additional regulatory burdens imposed by the USA Freedom Act. The NSA contends that the data is still useful, but also that the difficulties of complying with the law make it not worth it.
- mcculley 5y ago
  I am not understanding how you get to possible restrictions. How could I, as a private citizen or owner of a property be prevented from selling photos/videos with timestamps and geostamps? How could a company be prevented from buying and aggregating that data (even in other jurisdictions)? How could an end user be prevented from buying aggregated data as the cost plummets? Do you really think the NSA is not buying all available data sets?
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    The problem of preventing the transfer of uncomfortable data has already been tackled by copyright.
    - mcculley 5y ago
      Please elaborate. There are many markets for buying and selling photos and other data.
      - rhn_mk1 5y ago
        Copyright is a law that by design prevents the selling or buying or other transfer of some data, and it even sometimes works (black markets notwithstanding). If your goal is to restrict the transfer of some other kind of data, copyright is already a legal and practical framework that had tackled the same problems, and offers solutions.
        mcculley 5y ago
        Copyright protects intellectual property. It does not protect those captured in photos taken by others. Trademark law maybe would work here. Is that what you meant?
  - acover 5y ago
    How can you be prevented from murder? How was private ownership of gold illegal for decades? How was a farmer growing hay to feed their own horses illegal? The government has pretty wide reaching powers.
    - mcculley 5y ago
      I still have not heard a realistic way these capabilities would be limited. Ordinary consumers and corporations will have this technology. It will continue to get cheaper. How would governments not have it? The same people who sold browsing data to advertisers have this technology.
  - pope_meat 5y ago
    Probably the same way you're prevented from selling CP, and fully automatic fire arms out of your home? It won't stop it 100%, but it certainly has an effect.
    - mcculley 5y ago
      Would you eliminate sales of Internet-connected security cameras? Or just the sale of the data they collect? I am trying to understand how you think this is a genie that can be rebottled.
      - pope_meat 5y ago
        It's worth trying to get at least some of the genie back in the bottle. The laws against CP and automatic fire arms aren't 100% effective either, but that doesn't mean we abandon the idea of trying to regulate the activity completely, does it?
        mcculley 5y ago
        I am not arguing it would not be worthwhile to try. I argued that this data being collected and aggregated is inevitable. I still have not read a convincing reply otherwise. The ALPR data market is a perfect example of where we are heading.
      - mLuby 5y ago
        Banning individual product classes is a sure-fire way to keep regulators forever playing catch-up with industry. Most ideal: make personal data a massive business liability, such that personal data is rarely even collected, let alone stored. This is much more possible than people believe (even making exceptions for current regulations like KYC). Does the local pizza place need to know anything more than my order, where to deliver it, and that the money arrived in their account?‡ Does a hotel or airline need anything other than a confirmation code to hand over the room key or seat? And yes, this may kill off or force pivots from businesses that exist today solely to spy on us—that's the point! Only okay: personal data isn't shared or sold to third parties. Businesses can collect data on their own users, but it can't leak beyond the corp firewall or else big penalties come into play. Only okay because leaks are almost mathematically inevitable, so there will be constant lobby pressure to relax regulations, or enforcement thereof. Not good: personal data can be collected, retained, and sold by basically all companies, and the penalties for unintentionally disclosing those data are just slaps on the wrist. At least it can't get much worse though, right? Right?? Businesses will adapt to any set of regulations—it's up to us citizens to demand the laws we want. ‡But what about remembering your favorite orders, or saving customers time by not entering their info for each new order? One options is to let them bookmark the page, so their device can get back to it easily.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  NSA cares about laws?
only_as_i_fall 5y ago
Many states have two party consent laws that make it illegal to record private conversations without consent even in a public place. I fail to see how the same thing couldn't be done with video. Of course finding the political will to restrict things like security cameras is a different matter, but I don't think it'd it'd case that we couldn't write effective laws to prevent this.
- mcculley 5y ago
  As I wrote, we are already seeing this. Tow truck companies sell ALPR data to aggregators. Ring and Amazon are collecting security camera data. Please explain what legislation you would propose.
colechristensen 5y ago
Write data privacy laws which apply to surveillance cameras which require commercial entities to disclose what information is being collected, how it is being shared with provisions banning certain kinds of collecting, sharing, and storage with regulatory fines, criminal penalties, and provisions enabling class action lawsuits for misuse or other banned disclosures.
- mcculley 5y ago
  Disclosure is insufficient to prevent aggregation. The same kind of people who sold browsing data to advertisers are selling this data. If you do not want to be tracked, you have to get those around you to not provide the data.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    That would be why i listed many things more than disclosure.
    - mcculley 5y ago
      I misunderstood. Would you eliminate Facebook and the existing ALPR data aggregators? I am wondering how such restrictions would be possible.
      - colechristensen 5y ago
        You would come up with a decent legal definition of a surveillance camera with a distinction from a person taking pictures. You would add disclosure provisions, if an observed person could reasonably be expected to see and make a choice (say entering a business) there would be one set of rules, when a person couldn’t see a notice or make a choice (say a camera on a vehicle) there would be much more restrictive rules. You would make it a crime to violate the rules but administered like and possible to sue in civil court for victims. The crime would be on the owner/operator of the camera and special provisions would be added for storage providers.

rt4mn 5y ago

Just because something can be technically done does not mean that we cant impose restrictions that make it to costly to use except in the most constrained and extreme circumstances. This is an oversimplification of a complicated story, but a great example is when the NSA stopped doing mass phone / text analysis because of the additional regulatory burdens imposed by the USA Freedom Act. The NSA contends that the data is still useful, but also that the difficulties of complying with the law make it not worth it.

mcculley 5y ago
I am not understanding how you get to possible restrictions. How could I, as a private citizen or owner of a property be prevented from selling photos/videos with timestamps and geostamps? How could a company be prevented from buying and aggregating that data (even in other jurisdictions)? How could an end user be prevented from buying aggregated data as the cost plummets? Do you really think the NSA is not buying all available data sets?
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  The problem of preventing the transfer of uncomfortable data has already been tackled by copyright.
  - mcculley 5y ago
    Please elaborate. There are many markets for buying and selling photos and other data.
    - rhn_mk1 5y ago
      Copyright is a law that by design prevents the selling or buying or other transfer of some data, and it even sometimes works (black markets notwithstanding). If your goal is to restrict the transfer of some other kind of data, copyright is already a legal and practical framework that had tackled the same problems, and offers solutions.
      - mcculley 5y ago
        Copyright protects intellectual property. It does not protect those captured in photos taken by others. Trademark law maybe would work here. Is that what you meant?
- acover 5y ago
  How can you be prevented from murder? How was private ownership of gold illegal for decades? How was a farmer growing hay to feed their own horses illegal? The government has pretty wide reaching powers.
  - mcculley 5y ago
    I still have not heard a realistic way these capabilities would be limited. Ordinary consumers and corporations will have this technology. It will continue to get cheaper. How would governments not have it? The same people who sold browsing data to advertisers have this technology.
- pope_meat 5y ago
  Probably the same way you're prevented from selling CP, and fully automatic fire arms out of your home? It won't stop it 100%, but it certainly has an effect.
  - mcculley 5y ago
    Would you eliminate sales of Internet-connected security cameras? Or just the sale of the data they collect? I am trying to understand how you think this is a genie that can be rebottled.
    - pope_meat 5y ago
      It's worth trying to get at least some of the genie back in the bottle. The laws against CP and automatic fire arms aren't 100% effective either, but that doesn't mean we abandon the idea of trying to regulate the activity completely, does it?
      - mcculley 5y ago
        I am not arguing it would not be worthwhile to try. I argued that this data being collected and aggregated is inevitable. I still have not read a convincing reply otherwise. The ALPR data market is a perfect example of where we are heading.
    - mLuby 5y ago
      Banning individual product classes is a sure-fire way to keep regulators forever playing catch-up with industry. Most ideal: make personal data a massive business liability, such that personal data is rarely even collected, let alone stored. This is much more possible than people believe (even making exceptions for current regulations like KYC). Does the local pizza place need to know anything more than my order, where to deliver it, and that the money arrived in their account?‡ Does a hotel or airline need anything other than a confirmation code to hand over the room key or seat? And yes, this may kill off or force pivots from businesses that exist today solely to spy on us—that's the point! Only okay: personal data isn't shared or sold to third parties. Businesses can collect data on their own users, but it can't leak beyond the corp firewall or else big penalties come into play. Only okay because leaks are almost mathematically inevitable, so there will be constant lobby pressure to relax regulations, or enforcement thereof. Not good: personal data can be collected, retained, and sold by basically all companies, and the penalties for unintentionally disclosing those data are just slaps on the wrist. At least it can't get much worse though, right? Right?? Businesses will adapt to any set of regulations—it's up to us citizens to demand the laws we want. ‡But what about remembering your favorite orders, or saving customers time by not entering their info for each new order? One options is to let them bookmark the page, so their device can get back to it easily.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
NSA cares about laws?

only_as_i_fall 5y ago

Many states have two party consent laws that make it illegal to record private conversations without consent even in a public place. I fail to see how the same thing couldn't be done with video. Of course finding the political will to restrict things like security cameras is a different matter, but I don't think it'd it'd case that we couldn't write effective laws to prevent this.

mcculley 5y ago
As I wrote, we are already seeing this. Tow truck companies sell ALPR data to aggregators. Ring and Amazon are collecting security camera data. Please explain what legislation you would propose.

colechristensen 5y ago

Write data privacy laws which apply to surveillance cameras which require commercial entities to disclose what information is being collected, how it is being shared with provisions banning certain kinds of collecting, sharing, and storage with regulatory fines, criminal penalties, and provisions enabling class action lawsuits for misuse or other banned disclosures.

mcculley 5y ago
Disclosure is insufficient to prevent aggregation. The same kind of people who sold browsing data to advertisers are selling this data. If you do not want to be tracked, you have to get those around you to not provide the data.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  That would be why i listed many things more than disclosure.
  - mcculley 5y ago
    I misunderstood. Would you eliminate Facebook and the existing ALPR data aggregators? I am wondering how such restrictions would be possible.
    - colechristensen 5y ago
      You would come up with a decent legal definition of a surveillance camera with a distinction from a person taking pictures. You would add disclosure provisions, if an observed person could reasonably be expected to see and make a choice (say entering a business) there would be one set of rules, when a person couldn’t see a notice or make a choice (say a camera on a vehicle) there would be much more restrictive rules. You would make it a crime to violate the rules but administered like and possible to sue in civil court for victims. The crime would be on the owner/operator of the camera and special provisions would be added for storage providers.