3 ms·
It's your anology about shopping in a store -vs- reading the web [anywhere, including in private]. >but that is what is happening regardless So the justificat
by crtasm 3y ago
It's your anology about shopping in a store -vs- reading the web [anywhere, including in private].
>but that is what is happening regardless
So the justification is "everyone else is doing it" - OK.
- satvikpendem 3y agoSame with cameras in stores then, there is no expectation of privacy when entering a store, and similarly, there is none when visiting someone's server and website.
- crtasm 3y agoAs already stated: most people are unaware of and do not expect this level of intrusive behaviour tracking. I don't think I can be any clearer on this point. Enough going around in circles.
- satvikpendem 3y agoI'm just stating that the justification is not "because everyone else does it," because you could say the same about stores. That is why I mentioned that they are not "clearly very different situations" as you said, they are the same situation; one is going to a place that is not theirs so they have no expectation of privacy. Just because one is in cyberspace and the other is in meatspace doesn't mean that they are necessarily different in analogy. That people know about this type of tracking with stores and do not with websites is not my problem, and at best, they should be educated about that, and indeed we have laws against this exact thing, such as CFAA, and no judge will let you off the hook just because you said it was in cyberspace and not meatspace that you invaded someone else's servers. Therefore, both are analogously the same.
- crtasm 3y agoNot your problem and someone else should educate people about what you're actively choosing to do, got it.
- satvikpendem 3y agoThat is correct, people not knowing about CCTV is not the problem of the store. At best, they could have a sign stating so but are not obligated to do so.