4 ms·

Privacy is about more than just targeted ads. That is just the most obvious application. Here are a handful of other practical privacy concerns: * Negative inf

Privacy is about more than just targeted ads. That is just the most obvious application. Here are a handful of other practical privacy concerns: * Negative information about you floating free (mugshots websites, revenge porn, news articles about past behaviour) * Health and other behavioural information (e.g. used by health, life and auto insurance. These days your medical info might be used to sue you in another state even!) * Privacy in semi-public places (ring cameras, uber dashcams) * Financial information being used against you (credit ratings obviously, but also being deemed a fraud risk makes a lot of transactions difficult) * Criminal history is commonly used in job applications. I'm not saying we need to go to one extreme - how would loans work without credit ratings, and CCTV definitly improves safety in some situations - but I just want to point out the range of issues at play. Most of these already have some kind of legal compromise. Also beyond practical concerns there is a principal at stake too. We fundamentally deserve some degree of privacy just for it's own good.

gumby 3y ago
> * Negative information about you floating free (mugshots websites... I know that is embarrassing and subject to abuse, but making all arrests public is an important human right. The British used secret arrests against the 1770s rebellion in north america (and not to mention long before then and pretty continually since) which is why it's important in American law, though the British are hardly the only ones to use this tactic. Even the USA has done so too, most notably in the early 2000s, though not within US territory as far as I know.
- bsder 3y ago
  Can we please remember that things can be "public" without being "online"? The big companies don't want you to think about this because they benefit from being able to hoover up everything with a couple of clicks. There's nothing wrong with having to show up in person at a courthouse to see arrest records. Making a human have to physically show up to make a request for a record does a nice job of adding just enough friction that you can't create these abusable repositories quite so easily.
  - anonymousab 3y ago
    If the state tried to prevent people from talking about officially public information, that seems like something that would be slapped down on first amendment grounds alone.
    - bsder 3y ago
      Normally, I agree with you. Stuff like land boundaries, budget allocations, etc. should all be free to access, aggregate, and propagate. Arrest records are a bit different as you need to balance the rights of a person against the benefits to society. A person should not be punished simply by having an arrest record--that violates "presumption of innocence". Blind promulgation and aggregation of such records violates lots of people's rights. The police arrest people for shitty reasons all the time and then never press charges. If you want to promulgate an individual's arrest record, you should have to have some reason that overrides the right to "presumption of innocence" if you want to promulgate or aggregate that record. And you should have to show up with a piece of paper in person to get that record.
  - 542458 3y ago
    Yeah, IIRC in New York arrest records are available and can be requested online… but there’s a $50 fee per request, and you don’t get mugshots. Enough availability to ensure the police can’t hide arrests, but also enough barrier to discourage mass collection and abuse of the data.
  - gumby 3y ago
    > Can we please remember that things can be "public" without being "online"? If the point is to let everybody know so the arrestee’s friends can know and possibly help, making the records harder to find doesn’t help. That doesn’t mean mugshots need be online, but in today’s photo-centric world it’s not clear a textual posting would be adequate for the problem.
    - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
      Is that the point of publicly available mugshots?
- flangola7 3y ago
  Many nations with better democracies than the US don't publicize arrest record photographs.

gumby 3y ago

> * Negative information about you floating free (mugshots websites... I know that is embarrassing and subject to abuse, but making all arrests public is an important human right. The British used secret arrests against the 1770s rebellion in north america (and not to mention long before then and pretty continually since) which is why it's important in American law, though the British are hardly the only ones to use this tactic. Even the USA has done so too, most notably in the early 2000s, though not within US territory as far as I know.

bsder 3y ago
Can we please remember that things can be "public" without being "online"? The big companies don't want you to think about this because they benefit from being able to hoover up everything with a couple of clicks. There's nothing wrong with having to show up in person at a courthouse to see arrest records. Making a human have to physically show up to make a request for a record does a nice job of adding just enough friction that you can't create these abusable repositories quite so easily.
- anonymousab 3y ago
  If the state tried to prevent people from talking about officially public information, that seems like something that would be slapped down on first amendment grounds alone.
  - bsder 3y ago
    Normally, I agree with you. Stuff like land boundaries, budget allocations, etc. should all be free to access, aggregate, and propagate. Arrest records are a bit different as you need to balance the rights of a person against the benefits to society. A person should not be punished simply by having an arrest record--that violates "presumption of innocence". Blind promulgation and aggregation of such records violates lots of people's rights. The police arrest people for shitty reasons all the time and then never press charges. If you want to promulgate an individual's arrest record, you should have to have some reason that overrides the right to "presumption of innocence" if you want to promulgate or aggregate that record. And you should have to show up with a piece of paper in person to get that record.
- 542458 3y ago
  Yeah, IIRC in New York arrest records are available and can be requested online… but there’s a $50 fee per request, and you don’t get mugshots. Enough availability to ensure the police can’t hide arrests, but also enough barrier to discourage mass collection and abuse of the data.
- gumby 3y ago
  > Can we please remember that things can be "public" without being "online"? If the point is to let everybody know so the arrestee’s friends can know and possibly help, making the records harder to find doesn’t help. That doesn’t mean mugshots need be online, but in today’s photo-centric world it’s not clear a textual posting would be adequate for the problem.
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    Is that the point of publicly available mugshots?
flangola7 3y ago
Many nations with better democracies than the US don't publicize arrest record photographs.