4 ms·

I feel like this is a very common delusion, the expectation of privacy when going into public. It's like public photography. Some folks get really upset if the

I feel like this is a very common delusion, the expectation of privacy when going into public. It's like public photography. Some folks get really upset if their photo is taken out in public without consent, but those folks were out in public so zero expectation of privacy. Same exact thing for the Internet.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vkou 5y ago
You're looking at the world through black and white, to the exclusion of all the shades of gray. Someone snapping a photograph of a busy street is one thing. Someone snapping a photograph of a busy street, with a focus on you, because you are doing something that looks inappropriate, out of context, is another. Someone following you around, taking video, from the moment you step out of your front door, to the moment that you step back through it is a third. That someone can be a stranger who doesn't know or care that you exist, a private individual with a deranged vendetta against you, who has threatened you with harm[1], a company that does this on a massive scale and aggregates data, a company that does this on a targeted, personal scale, a government agency that is lawfully investigating a crime, a government agency that is unlawfully acting out of vindictiveness, a government agency that is lawfully acting out of vindictiveness... None of these things are the same, nor do they warrant the same "Oh, well, it's a public space, nobody owns it, everyone can do whatever they want." It's a public space. We all own it. We all get to determine what kind of behaviour is acceptable, and unacceptable in it. The solution to predators and bad actors in a public space is not expecting that everyone who can afford it move more of their life into a private one. That's how we lose our public spaces. [1] Depending on your jurisdiction, you may not have any particular recourse against that. Some locales really don't like handing out restraining orders... Or enforcing them, when they are broken.
b112 5y ago
https://educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/your-right-to-control-photos-and-videos-of-yourself/ https://educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/your-right-to-control-pho...
- chmod775 5y ago
  This is very similar to how it works in most western countries. You can photograph people in public all you want, but you cannot publish those without their permission. Blurring or the people not being in focus/center can allow you to do so without getting everyone's permission though (think of crowds, passersby in the background).
  - maerF0x0 5y ago
    > but you cannot publish those without their permission. I wonder if someone could argue that using their photo as training data could make the model itself a derivative work? iirc those require royalty/license too.
donkarma 5y ago
hope you don't mind my drone recording you and posting your location online at all times then
- parasense 5y ago
  That's fine, actually. Why would anybody have an expectation of privacy from aerial vehicles far above?
kube-system 5y ago
The amount of privacy one can expect in public is slightly more than zero, even in countries with very lax privacy law like the US.
tkfu 5y ago
It might be a "common delusion" where you live (I'm guessing the US), but in every country I've lived in (n=6), it's an accurate understanding of basic privacy law. You can't just go and take someone's photo without their permission, even if they're in a public place.
- parasense 5y ago
  Nonesense... * What about looking at people with one's own eyes, without the express consent of other people? * What about people with photographic memory, who are effectively walking cameras? * What about artists who draw pictures of people they see in public? Where does this nonsense ever end? While the question is hyperbolic, and I apologize, that's intentional use of the "Reducto absurdum" fallacy to help illustrate the absurdity of this kind of idea.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

vkou 5y ago

You're looking at the world through black and white, to the exclusion of all the shades of gray. Someone snapping a photograph of a busy street is one thing. Someone snapping a photograph of a busy street, with a focus on you, because you are doing something that looks inappropriate, out of context, is another. Someone following you around, taking video, from the moment you step out of your front door, to the moment that you step back through it is a third. That someone can be a stranger who doesn't know or care that you exist, a private individual with a deranged vendetta against you, who has threatened you with harm[1], a company that does this on a massive scale and aggregates data, a company that does this on a targeted, personal scale, a government agency that is lawfully investigating a crime, a government agency that is unlawfully acting out of vindictiveness, a government agency that is lawfully acting out of vindictiveness... None of these things are the same, nor do they warrant the same "Oh, well, it's a public space, nobody owns it, everyone can do whatever they want." It's a public space. We all own it. We all get to determine what kind of behaviour is acceptable, and unacceptable in it. The solution to predators and bad actors in a public space is not expecting that everyone who can afford it move more of their life into a private one. That's how we lose our public spaces. [1] Depending on your jurisdiction, you may not have any particular recourse against that. Some locales really don't like handing out restraining orders... Or enforcing them, when they are broken.

b112 5y ago

https://educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/your-right-to-control-photos-and-videos-of-yourself/ https://educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/your-right-to-control-pho...

chmod775 5y ago
This is very similar to how it works in most western countries. You can photograph people in public all you want, but you cannot publish those without their permission. Blurring or the people not being in focus/center can allow you to do so without getting everyone's permission though (think of crowds, passersby in the background).
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  > but you cannot publish those without their permission. I wonder if someone could argue that using their photo as training data could make the model itself a derivative work? iirc those require royalty/license too.

donkarma 5y ago

hope you don't mind my drone recording you and posting your location online at all times then

parasense 5y ago
That's fine, actually. Why would anybody have an expectation of privacy from aerial vehicles far above?

kube-system 5y ago

The amount of privacy one can expect in public is slightly more than zero, even in countries with very lax privacy law like the US.

tkfu 5y ago

It might be a "common delusion" where you live (I'm guessing the US), but in every country I've lived in (n=6), it's an accurate understanding of basic privacy law. You can't just go and take someone's photo without their permission, even if they're in a public place.

parasense 5y ago
Nonesense... * What about looking at people with one's own eyes, without the express consent of other people? * What about people with photographic memory, who are effectively walking cameras? * What about artists who draw pictures of people they see in public? Where does this nonsense ever end? While the question is hyperbolic, and I apologize, that's intentional use of the "Reducto absurdum" fallacy to help illustrate the absurdity of this kind of idea.