3 ms·
Anyone is free to sign up to the gym and go to the showers. And it’s not about Google specifically. Any server is located out in what is essentially public. Whe
by rcme 3y ago
Anyone is free to sign up to the gym and go to the showers. And it’s not about Google specifically. Any server is located out in what is essentially public. When you connect over the internet, you’re essentially leaving your house to go to that server.
Let’s say you used radio waves to operate a robot on a public street. Would it be invasive for those nearby to look at the robot? According to you, yes it would be because you’re controlling the robot from the privacy of your home. Or if you control the robot into someone’s yard. Wouldn’t they have a right to look at it? I’m not sure how you physically sitting at home changes things.
- yosito 3y agoYour arguments aren't really rational.
- rcme 3y agoOk... I'm just taking your arguments (that you have no expectation of privacy in public) and showing you all the ways that you, personally, have an expectation of privacy in public. You have an expectation in a public shower. You have an expectation of privacy when your bits are in public. Why not in other situations?
- yosito 3y agoYou're switching the definition of public from publicly observable to publicly owned. Those are not the same thing.
- rcme 3y agoIt’s actually you who are making the distinction. The article doesn’t mention whether or not the filmed people were “in public” or whether they were only “publicly observable” (whatever that means). One of the videos I know for a fact occurred in a shopping mall, which is private property that is open to the public. I assume this means “publicly observable” in your definition. But in either case, in regards to your original comment, how did you determine these people were "in public" instead of "publicly observable"?