6 ms·

There is a distinction I tend to make here. If some person was able to pick me out from a lineup because they physically saw me then that wasn't private and pr

by jpc0 3y ago

There is a distinction I tend to make here. If some person was able to pick me out from a lineup because they physically saw me then that wasn't private and privacy laws don't apply. So for instance capturing my face on CCTV in a public place isn't a privacy violation, same with my license plate in a pulic place. However what happens on my private property is a privacy violation if it is recorded without consent. Certian information isn't private, and that being stored is fine. Where the line gets drawn is what's up for debate. I surely would want my contact details and name saved by a company that I intend to do business with in either direction. However if they spam me with information I should be able to lodge an harrassment claim against them. It's not a privacy issue but a decency issue.

chgs 3y ago
> However what happens on my private property is a privacy violation if it is recorded without consent. And the biggest enablers of violation are things like ring doorbells and dashcams. There is no comeback in my country, don’t know about the US. Governmental and commercial cctv has checks and balances. Domestic just goes onto planet wide databases with no control.
fmobus 3y ago
That notion isn't universal. In Germany, for instance, I can't install a camera pointing to the street.
- jpc0 3y ago
  I understand that completely. Just wanted to give a different viewpoint on that. I'm all for finding a balance, it's just that many times people are against surveillance that does actually improve security or enforcement but mildy infringes on their "rights" when in reality they never had privacy in that situation to start with and the use of technology didn't substantially change that. Youtube being forced to give up personal information based on who viewed a video is something I don't see as an issue. How is this any different from any other website getting the exact same order? If you are doing something shady you know how to obfuscate that information, if you aren't, sure your "privacy" was "violated" for sure but it was violated in a way that was legally allowed and by law enforcement at that. Living in a surveillance state where I have no choice but for the government to be able to track every single transaction I make financially and being able to link my cell number amongst other details directly to me, I feel like if I had to try to fight that I would only be causing myself undue anxiety and I've got enough legitimate reasons to be anxious.
  - KennyBlanken 3y ago
    "Hunters don't kill the innocent animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species! If they're not guilty, why are they running?"
    - jpc0 3y ago
      I never said any of that. What I said is for this specific point a smart criminal won't get caught and you too can very easily obfuscate that very same data.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >Youtube being forced to give up personal information based on who viewed a video is something I don't see as an issue. How is this any different from any other website getting the exact same order? Scale. This isn't "supbpeona to get all of Bob's info", it's "subpeona to get information on all of the people's info tangentially related to bob". Imagine if this was as tangential as "who watched this video with 10m views"? is the YT history of 10m people worth it? Is it even useful? The issue comes down to whether or not "Youtube" is a public place. All logistical terms point to "no", hence this story. >your "privacy" was "violated" for sure but it was violated in a way that was legally allowed and by law enforcement at that. That isn't how court orders work. They cannot make a single order to search an entire neighborhood's worth of houses because of drugs or whatever. That'd be N orders which may or may not go through based on the arguments made.
  - partitioned 3y ago
    Thank you for so eloquently explaining the bootlicking and privacy not caring mindset I’ve never understood. Also sorry that I can’t come up with a less worse way to say that
  - kortilla 3y ago
    > and the use of technology didn't substantially change that. This is complete BS. Technology made it scalable to track where everyone is and query it historically. This used to require tailing someone so it couldn’t be done at scale.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  Unless you're wealthy and powerful. I guarantee the very wealthy or politically powerful have plenty of very-well-hidden cameras surrounding their properties. Those rules are to keep you from catching and proving the powerful doing something they shouldn't.
  - fmobus 3y ago
    I... well, I will be honest, this is the first time I've heard someone arguing that street facing CCTV was meant to catch _that_ kind of wrongdoing. For the German context, and for the kind of CCTV I'm talking about, it makes no sense thou.
- brokenmachine 3y ago
  Are businesses allowed to install cameras facing the street?
zakki 3y ago
So, when your in your own property, cellular tower shouldn't be allowed to allow your mobile phone to register? Because they will record your IMEI while you are in your private property.
- williamcotton 3y ago
  Yeah but the electro-magnetic spectrum is a limited public good. You don’t own your broadcasted radio waves in the same way you own your house. Your cellphone is a pollutant.
- Etherlord87 3y ago
  Both the radio waves his cell phone emits, and the information (voltage change of an ADSL line or photons moving in an optic fiber) used to communicate over the Internet, actually leave his home, and then are registered. So I think in nature it's the same as sending a letter. So let's symmetrically consider that you send a letter, and police/agency asks the post office to attach to each letter information (from, to, weight, stamp...) the phone number from their database. If that happens for all letters going through a given sorting room, I can understand how that's an abuse.
scarface_74 3y ago
> If some person was able to pick me out from a lineup because they physically saw me then that wasn't private and privacy laws don't apply It’s not an invasion of privacy. But it is a problem for other reasons https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-biases#:~:text=Identification%20errors%20occur%2C%20and%20these,for%20what%20should%20have%20happened https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitness-testimony-and-mem....

by jpc0 3y ago

chgs 3y ago

> However what happens on my private property is a privacy violation if it is recorded without consent. And the biggest enablers of violation are things like ring doorbells and dashcams. There is no comeback in my country, don’t know about the US. Governmental and commercial cctv has checks and balances. Domestic just goes onto planet wide databases with no control.

fmobus 3y ago

That notion isn't universal. In Germany, for instance, I can't install a camera pointing to the street.

jpc0 3y ago
I understand that completely. Just wanted to give a different viewpoint on that. I'm all for finding a balance, it's just that many times people are against surveillance that does actually improve security or enforcement but mildy infringes on their "rights" when in reality they never had privacy in that situation to start with and the use of technology didn't substantially change that. Youtube being forced to give up personal information based on who viewed a video is something I don't see as an issue. How is this any different from any other website getting the exact same order? If you are doing something shady you know how to obfuscate that information, if you aren't, sure your "privacy" was "violated" for sure but it was violated in a way that was legally allowed and by law enforcement at that. Living in a surveillance state where I have no choice but for the government to be able to track every single transaction I make financially and being able to link my cell number amongst other details directly to me, I feel like if I had to try to fight that I would only be causing myself undue anxiety and I've got enough legitimate reasons to be anxious.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  "Hunters don't kill the innocent animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species! If they're not guilty, why are they running?"
  - jpc0 3y ago
    I never said any of that. What I said is for this specific point a smart criminal won't get caught and you too can very easily obfuscate that very same data.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >Youtube being forced to give up personal information based on who viewed a video is something I don't see as an issue. How is this any different from any other website getting the exact same order? Scale. This isn't "supbpeona to get all of Bob's info", it's "subpeona to get information on all of the people's info tangentially related to bob". Imagine if this was as tangential as "who watched this video with 10m views"? is the YT history of 10m people worth it? Is it even useful? The issue comes down to whether or not "Youtube" is a public place. All logistical terms point to "no", hence this story. >your "privacy" was "violated" for sure but it was violated in a way that was legally allowed and by law enforcement at that. That isn't how court orders work. They cannot make a single order to search an entire neighborhood's worth of houses because of drugs or whatever. That'd be N orders which may or may not go through based on the arguments made.
- partitioned 3y ago
  Thank you for so eloquently explaining the bootlicking and privacy not caring mindset I’ve never understood. Also sorry that I can’t come up with a less worse way to say that
- kortilla 3y ago
  > and the use of technology didn't substantially change that. This is complete BS. Technology made it scalable to track where everyone is and query it historically. This used to require tailing someone so it couldn’t be done at scale.
KennyBlanken 3y ago
Unless you're wealthy and powerful. I guarantee the very wealthy or politically powerful have plenty of very-well-hidden cameras surrounding their properties. Those rules are to keep you from catching and proving the powerful doing something they shouldn't.
- fmobus 3y ago
  I... well, I will be honest, this is the first time I've heard someone arguing that street facing CCTV was meant to catch _that_ kind of wrongdoing. For the German context, and for the kind of CCTV I'm talking about, it makes no sense thou.
brokenmachine 3y ago
Are businesses allowed to install cameras facing the street?

zakki 3y ago

So, when your in your own property, cellular tower shouldn't be allowed to allow your mobile phone to register? Because they will record your IMEI while you are in your private property.

williamcotton 3y ago
Yeah but the electro-magnetic spectrum is a limited public good. You don’t own your broadcasted radio waves in the same way you own your house. Your cellphone is a pollutant.
Etherlord87 3y ago
Both the radio waves his cell phone emits, and the information (voltage change of an ADSL line or photons moving in an optic fiber) used to communicate over the Internet, actually leave his home, and then are registered. So I think in nature it's the same as sending a letter. So let's symmetrically consider that you send a letter, and police/agency asks the post office to attach to each letter information (from, to, weight, stamp...) the phone number from their database. If that happens for all letters going through a given sorting room, I can understand how that's an abuse.

scarface_74 3y ago

> If some person was able to pick me out from a lineup because they physically saw me then that wasn't private and privacy laws don't apply It’s not an invasion of privacy. But it is a problem for other reasons https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-biases#:~:text=Identification%20errors%20occur%2C%20and%20these,for%20what%20should%20have%20happened https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitness-testimony-and-mem....