4 ms·

I don't agree that surveillance cameras on public property are an invasion of privacy any more than police body cams. As a photographer, I am allowed to take ph

I don't agree that surveillance cameras on public property are an invasion of privacy any more than police body cams. As a photographer, I am allowed to take photos and video anywhere on public property, with the exception of places where there is an expectation of privacy, like a public restroom. To me, the same applies to government surveillance. The problem arises when the government restricts that video from the public, which can be countered with laws like the Freedom of Information Act.

AinderS 4y ago
Your initial claim is that it is not an invasion of privacy, but your argument is only that it is legal. And is it also not an invasion of privacy in China, where facial recognition cameras log everywhere you go in public? Any protest you attend, or coffee shop where troublemakers congregate that you visit, all of it is logged, and you don't even need to carry your phone with you. The UK is showing every intention of reaching parity with China in this regard. But that's no different than a random photographer taking your picture, or a grandmother noticing you come and go through a window? I agree "privacy" isn't the perfect word, but seems to be the best one we have to describe what we're losing as surveillance expands.
- foverzar 4y ago
  You can't realistically expect privacy in a public space.
  - ehvatum 4y ago
    Note that there are 8 state jurisdictions in the United States where surveillance in public of one specific individual by another is illegal if the surveilled party objects. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/stlkbook.pdf https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/stlkbook.pdf
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    You are out and about it your car. It’s reasonable to think people can’t just open it and search it. You are sitting on a park bench. It would be considered an invasion of privacy if someone opened your bag and took out a diary or note book and started reading it. If you were meeting a friend in a public space and someone later confronted you about something you had said and produced a recording, it would probably make some portion of people uncomfortable.
raspyberr 4y ago
I don't like your photographer vs government surveillance comparison. The scope is important. You as a single photographer cannot collect, analyse, and enact upon anywhere close to the amount the government (a single entity) can.
- infogulch 4y ago
  'at some point a difference in scale rises to a difference in kind'
cm42 4y ago
I think most people would agree that a photographer can, let's say, photograph houses on a residential street. Setting up a long time-lapse on the sidewalk might attract a few questions and some conversation, but I'd guess most people would be cool with it, and it's probably also pretty clearly within the spirit of the law(s). But pointing it directly across the street at a particular house and leaving it there for days, weeks, months on end would probably attract some kind of negative attention from the homeowner, especially if you told them you were live-streaming to the internet (password-protected/encrypted or not). I'm no lawyer, but, to me, that feels closer to sitting outside their house for days like a detective in an 80's movie than photographing public happenings.

AinderS 4y ago

Your initial claim is that it is not an invasion of privacy, but your argument is only that it is legal. And is it also not an invasion of privacy in China, where facial recognition cameras log everywhere you go in public? Any protest you attend, or coffee shop where troublemakers congregate that you visit, all of it is logged, and you don't even need to carry your phone with you. The UK is showing every intention of reaching parity with China in this regard. But that's no different than a random photographer taking your picture, or a grandmother noticing you come and go through a window? I agree "privacy" isn't the perfect word, but seems to be the best one we have to describe what we're losing as surveillance expands.

foverzar 4y ago
You can't realistically expect privacy in a public space.
- ehvatum 4y ago
  Note that there are 8 state jurisdictions in the United States where surveillance in public of one specific individual by another is illegal if the surveilled party objects. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/stlkbook.pdf https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/stlkbook.pdf
- lostlogin 4y ago
  You are out and about it your car. It’s reasonable to think people can’t just open it and search it. You are sitting on a park bench. It would be considered an invasion of privacy if someone opened your bag and took out a diary or note book and started reading it. If you were meeting a friend in a public space and someone later confronted you about something you had said and produced a recording, it would probably make some portion of people uncomfortable.

raspyberr 4y ago

I don't like your photographer vs government surveillance comparison. The scope is important. You as a single photographer cannot collect, analyse, and enact upon anywhere close to the amount the government (a single entity) can.

infogulch 4y ago
'at some point a difference in scale rises to a difference in kind'

cm42 4y ago

I think most people would agree that a photographer can, let's say, photograph houses on a residential street. Setting up a long time-lapse on the sidewalk might attract a few questions and some conversation, but I'd guess most people would be cool with it, and it's probably also pretty clearly within the spirit of the law(s). But pointing it directly across the street at a particular house and leaving it there for days, weeks, months on end would probably attract some kind of negative attention from the homeowner, especially if you told them you were live-streaming to the internet (password-protected/encrypted or not). I'm no lawyer, but, to me, that feels closer to sitting outside their house for days like a detective in an 80's movie than photographing public happenings.