4 ms·

>Perhaps at the moment, but there's no moral reason why the law cannot constraint and regulate this space, especially if it harms the common good. The legal pr

>Perhaps at the moment, but there's no moral reason why the law cannot constraint and regulate this space, especially if it harms the common good. The legal problem is: do you now arrest a parent taking a picture of their child on a public street and your house happens to be in the frame? Of course not, but how do you legally differentiate the two?

giraffe_lady 3y ago
More subtle differentiations than that are made by law and handled routinely by courts. Remember it's not (yet) an algorithm that has to be precisely specified. Things like intent and effect can be considered and judgement applied in court by a person whose title reflects their responsibility to do exactly that.
- Clubber 3y ago
  So tell me how you would write it where it's actually effective and a person surveilling you can't hack it, like having a child or dog, or any exception with them in the frame all the time. A person can call themselves "press," and be constitutionally correct; press can't be defined and credentialed by the state and be "free." I can't think of a way personally, but I'm open to ideas. >Remember it's not (yet) an algorithm that has to be precisely specified. Yes, but the more vague the more prone to state abuse and the more likely to be struck down. Freedoms carry burdens, but the freedoms outweighs the burdens in nearly all cases.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    I'm not a lawyer or a legislator it's not my responsibility to write law phrasing to your satisfaction. This would be handled the same way other plausibly deniable things like fraud and harassment are handled. By evaluating the context, subpoenaing records and conversations, questioning under oath, looking at the effects and history of actions of the individuals involved.
    - Clubber 3y ago
      >write law phrasing to your satisfaction I wasn't trying to be combative, I just thought you had an idea that I hadn't thought of that would satisfy the privacy concerns with the freedom to photograph in public concerns. >By evaluating the context, subpoenaing records and conversations, questioning under oath, looking at the effects and history of actions of the individuals involved. So a lady gets arrested for photographing her child with your house in the background, she would now have to be interrogated, give a deposition under oath and go trial and go through all that? Writing good laws is hard.
      - giraffe_lady 3y ago
        No I'm just trying to avoid that classic HN situation of being talked into making specific assertions outside my expertise and then technical flaws being used to dismiss the broader point I'm making. Writing good laws is hard sure but you're approaching this having already accepted the framing that the only way to prevent this police overreach is to restrict everyone from doing similar things. We can just prevent the police from doing this. We don't need to write a perfectly generalizable restriction on everyone's ability to take pictures or whatever. The cops aren't the public and should be subject to additional restrictions beyond what the public is subjected to.
        Clubber 3y ago
        >having already accepted the framing that the only way to prevent this police overreach is to restrict everyone from doing similar things. My position is people should be free to photograph in public anything they can see. That's currently how the law is written. I don't think it's perfect, but I can't think of a better alternative (thus this discussion). >The cops aren't the public and should be subject to additional restrictions beyond what the public is subjected to. I agree as an ideal, but in practice there are a lot of barriers. - They can legally arrest you, even if you didn't break any laws and aren't required to even know the law. - They aren't legally required to help anybody. - They have blanket qualified immunity granted by the SCOTUS. - Each police department and sheriff's department is their own jurisdiction, so any blanket restraint would need to be done at the federal level. - They have one of, if not the strongest unions in the country. - They have strong political support that is just now eroding a bit in blue states. We are having a hard time just managing police brutality and unnecessary force currently. An interesting irony is that the more laws / restrictions we ask the government to put on people, the broader jurisdiction the police have over our everyday lives. An old example is jaywalking. Since jaywalking became a crime, the police can stop / detain you, legally require you to identify (and arrest / charge you if you refuse) and possibly Terry frisk you just because you walked across the street in a certain way. Because of this, when people propose making a law to prevent people from doing something not-egregious, like say smoking at the beach, I'm against it. It's not worth the intrusion for me and my kids and my kids' kids, etc. Anyway, I've gotten way off topic. Thanks for the discussion.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
BizarroLand 3y ago
By saying the government isn't allow to video or photo surveil someone's home without a warrant. A parent is not the government, and even though warrants are easy enough to get in most places at least they're following the letter of the law if not the spirit by getting one.

giraffe_lady 3y ago

More subtle differentiations than that are made by law and handled routinely by courts. Remember it's not (yet) an algorithm that has to be precisely specified. Things like intent and effect can be considered and judgement applied in court by a person whose title reflects their responsibility to do exactly that.

Clubber 3y ago
So tell me how you would write it where it's actually effective and a person surveilling you can't hack it, like having a child or dog, or any exception with them in the frame all the time. A person can call themselves "press," and be constitutionally correct; press can't be defined and credentialed by the state and be "free." I can't think of a way personally, but I'm open to ideas. >Remember it's not (yet) an algorithm that has to be precisely specified. Yes, but the more vague the more prone to state abuse and the more likely to be struck down. Freedoms carry burdens, but the freedoms outweighs the burdens in nearly all cases.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  I'm not a lawyer or a legislator it's not my responsibility to write law phrasing to your satisfaction. This would be handled the same way other plausibly deniable things like fraud and harassment are handled. By evaluating the context, subpoenaing records and conversations, questioning under oath, looking at the effects and history of actions of the individuals involved.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >write law phrasing to your satisfaction I wasn't trying to be combative, I just thought you had an idea that I hadn't thought of that would satisfy the privacy concerns with the freedom to photograph in public concerns. >By evaluating the context, subpoenaing records and conversations, questioning under oath, looking at the effects and history of actions of the individuals involved. So a lady gets arrested for photographing her child with your house in the background, she would now have to be interrogated, give a deposition under oath and go trial and go through all that? Writing good laws is hard.
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      No I'm just trying to avoid that classic HN situation of being talked into making specific assertions outside my expertise and then technical flaws being used to dismiss the broader point I'm making. Writing good laws is hard sure but you're approaching this having already accepted the framing that the only way to prevent this police overreach is to restrict everyone from doing similar things. We can just prevent the police from doing this. We don't need to write a perfectly generalizable restriction on everyone's ability to take pictures or whatever. The cops aren't the public and should be subject to additional restrictions beyond what the public is subjected to.
      - Clubber 3y ago
        >having already accepted the framing that the only way to prevent this police overreach is to restrict everyone from doing similar things. My position is people should be free to photograph in public anything they can see. That's currently how the law is written. I don't think it's perfect, but I can't think of a better alternative (thus this discussion). >The cops aren't the public and should be subject to additional restrictions beyond what the public is subjected to. I agree as an ideal, but in practice there are a lot of barriers. - They can legally arrest you, even if you didn't break any laws and aren't required to even know the law. - They aren't legally required to help anybody. - They have blanket qualified immunity granted by the SCOTUS. - Each police department and sheriff's department is their own jurisdiction, so any blanket restraint would need to be done at the federal level. - They have one of, if not the strongest unions in the country. - They have strong political support that is just now eroding a bit in blue states. We are having a hard time just managing police brutality and unnecessary force currently. An interesting irony is that the more laws / restrictions we ask the government to put on people, the broader jurisdiction the police have over our everyday lives. An old example is jaywalking. Since jaywalking became a crime, the police can stop / detain you, legally require you to identify (and arrest / charge you if you refuse) and possibly Terry frisk you just because you walked across the street in a certain way. Because of this, when people propose making a law to prevent people from doing something not-egregious, like say smoking at the beach, I'm against it. It's not worth the intrusion for me and my kids and my kids' kids, etc. Anyway, I've gotten way off topic. Thanks for the discussion.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

BizarroLand 3y ago

By saying the government isn't allow to video or photo surveil someone's home without a warrant. A parent is not the government, and even though warrants are easy enough to get in most places at least they're following the letter of the law if not the spirit by getting one.