4 ms·

As has been pointed out approximately a billion times, technology has made surveillance possible to an extent that was inconceivable back in the founders' time.

by rgmerk 3y ago

As has been pointed out approximately a billion times, technology has made surveillance possible to an extent that was inconceivable back in the founders' time. Before sound recording technology, if there was no-one else around and had a whispered conversation with another person in a public park, I have a reasonable expectation that the conversation is private. Fast forward to, say, 1980. While it's technically possible for law enforcement to record that conversation (with a dish microphone or through employing a lip-reader and binoculars) the resources required to do so are such that it's very rarely used. But what about 2023? Or, better still, 2033? Let's imagine it's technically possible for me to stand in the middle of said park with a recording device and intelligibly record every conversation within a 500-yard radius. Would this be considered acceptable? Should governments have the ability to prohibit or restrict the use of such devices, even in public places?

ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
[flagged]
- rgmerk 3y ago
  There are plenty of legal things that people discuss in parks that they nevertheless wouldn't want recorded and disclosed to all and sundry.
  - ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
    They made the choice to discuss it in a public place. Should lip-readers be required to avert their eyes from everyone else in the park?
alkonaut 3y ago
I think it's an interesting question, but perhaps it's the wrong approach to even try to answer it? Perhaps it's better to consider what happens TO the recording. Being obviously recorded (paparazzi) is the case when the recording itself feels like it is infringing my privacy. If I don't know, and the recording is piped to /dev/null then I can't really care? But if the recording is kept too long, or published somewhere, then that's when I might care. So perhaps we should focus on what's being done to the recorded material. Compare to how in most legislations (afaik) it's ok for me to snap a picture of someone who happens to be in my view when I snap a picture of the Eiffel Tower. And I can publish that on my blog without permission. BUT if I want to sell it as a stock photo or use it in a commercial then I need explicit consent from the people in the picture. I think this makes perfect sense from a consent perspective.

by rgmerk 3y ago

ShadowBanThis01 3y ago

[flagged]

rgmerk 3y ago
There are plenty of legal things that people discuss in parks that they nevertheless wouldn't want recorded and disclosed to all and sundry.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
  They made the choice to discuss it in a public place. Should lip-readers be required to avert their eyes from everyone else in the park?

alkonaut 3y ago

I think it's an interesting question, but perhaps it's the wrong approach to even try to answer it? Perhaps it's better to consider what happens TO the recording. Being obviously recorded (paparazzi) is the case when the recording itself feels like it is infringing my privacy. If I don't know, and the recording is piped to /dev/null then I can't really care? But if the recording is kept too long, or published somewhere, then that's when I might care. So perhaps we should focus on what's being done to the recorded material. Compare to how in most legislations (afaik) it's ok for me to snap a picture of someone who happens to be in my view when I snap a picture of the Eiffel Tower. And I can publish that on my blog without permission. BUT if I want to sell it as a stock photo or use it in a commercial then I need explicit consent from the people in the picture. I think this makes perfect sense from a consent perspective.