6 ms·
The idea of privacy has been thoroughly frustrated. Today, there's no expectation of privacy any more, let alone “reasonable expectation of privacy”. Expectin
by tempodox 2y ago
The idea of privacy has been thoroughly frustrated. Today, there's no expectation of privacy any more, let alone “reasonable expectation of privacy”. Expecting privacy has become unreasonable by definition.
- nerdponx 2y agoIt has not yet become unreasonable by definition. Certain powerful forces would like that to be the the case, and they have been successful at moving things in that direction so far, but they haven't succeeded yet.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago*in public You have a reasonable right to privacy, e.g., in your home.
- hanniabu 2y ago*As long as you don't own any internet-connected devices
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y agoHow does that remove the right? Presumably one is making the decision to connect these devices to the internet and could simply decide differently.
- mrsilencedogood 2y agoThere gets to be a certain point where we simply have to accept that while yes, technically one could simply not own a TV (increasingly difficult to find a DumbTV as opposed to a SmartTV with always-on microphone), any IOT things, a smartphone, etc etc, we cannot reasonably expect someone to not do this. Notably the smartphone, which of the entire list of probably the worst offender, second only to the TV perhaps because of the ick/literally-1984 factor of your TV listening to you. We practically can't expect people to do without a smartphone. It's how people pay bills, bank, access weather information, etc. And since it's the most-used path, it's also the best-maintained path. Non-smartphone alternatives have already rotted. Have you tried calling into half of those bills you pay via QR code instead of just scanning the code? Try it sometime. Instead of telling people to just go live on a mountain monastery in Tibet, we could instead simply eat our cake AND have it by just regulating this stuff. Pass privacy laws. Fine people who break them. Samsung, Google, etc will comply rather than not continue to bathe in our ad revenue.
- commodoreboxer 2y agoIt's really not that hard to have a smart TV and simply not connect it to your network. They'll beg to connect, but I haven't seen one that will refuse to function without an internet connection.
- mikestew 2y agoOur brand-new LG OLED doesn’t even beg. It asked at setup time, I selected “not in your marketing drone’s wildest dreams”, it said “cool, bro”, and hasn’t bothered us in the last two weeks. We don’t even see the TV’s home screen. Just power on the Xbox/Apple TV/whatever and HDMI CEC turns everything on and sets inputs.
- adastra22 2y agoFYI they sometimes share a connection via Ethernet-over-HDMI.
- mikestew 2y agoI am aware that HEC exists. Now show me a consumer electronics device that actually uses it. None of my devices advertise this feature.
- adastra22 2y agoThey don’t advertise this feature. It’s not a user visible feature. They sneakily do it to call home with app data. LG is notorious for this: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/lg-smart-tv-snooping-extends-to-home-networks-second-blogger-says/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/lg-sm...
- mikestew 2y agoI see nothing in that article that supports your claim, other than LG will sniff your network if you explicitly give it a network connection. Additionally, the LG TV has to go through an AV receiver and the Apple TV before it finds an Ethernet port. There is no doing it “sneakily” if the other devices don’t cooperate, and they don’t. On top of everything else, there is no traffic on my network that gives me cause for concern, I looked. On top of all that, think about the cost of implementing this versus the odds of there being a device on the other end of that HDMI cable that supports such functionality (very low). In the end, it would appear that you are mixing a little bit of truth with a whole lot of urban legend.
- Forgeties79 2y agoI don’t think it’s reasonable to say “just don’t have internet connected devices at all” in 2024. This falls too far into “caveat emptor” territory for my tastes. We all need to be informed and responsible but the burden of creating a totally disconnected-from-the-internet house (except for your core devices like phones/laptops) is actually pretty substantial and gets harder every year. Hell it’s becoming a problem with cars.
- EvanAnderson 2y agoI worry the normalization of Internet-connectedness in "smart devices" in the eyes of the public will lead to regulation of these devices for "privacy reasons" while offering no real privacy guarantees. I think the drive for "privacy respect" in devices should really be an effort to push manufacturers toward making devices that work without Internet-connectivity. I think everybody technical who cares about privacy should beat this drum to all their friends, family, etc, to vote with their wallets. Standalone devices make a stronger privacy guarantee than the alternative. "Connected" devices that offer "privacy" rely on the compliance of the companies who run the servers for the devices. It also means they can't get breached, either.
- ryandv 2y agoWhat say you of all the remote workers who now need such devices in order to do their work from home? Should they decide to return to office?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tempodox 2y agoHaving the right to privacy on paper doesn't mean you get it in practice.
- EasyMark 2y agoIt time we revisit "basic human rights" and emphasize privacy as part of those, and revamp laws to reflect that. Companies can still have ads and send out fliers in the mail. They don't need to know every move we make, website we visit, what we buy, etc. They have no right to that and it causes a lot of damage to society and mental health while only rewarding the company and no one else.
- no_time 2y agoThe new WI-FI sensing standard would like to have a word with that. https://standards.ieee.org/beyond-standards/ieee-802-11bf-aims-to-enable-a-new-application-of-wlan-technology-wlan-sensing/ https://standards.ieee.org/beyond-standards/ieee-802-11bf-ai...
- pojntfx 2y ago> Expecting privacy has become unreasonable by definition. *in the US that is. Basically everywhere else, esp. Europe, has been moving into the complete opposite direction here. There is _more_ privacy rights - and recourse, like the right to delete - then there has been at any point in the past.
- parasense 2y agoYeah, Europe has an interesting way of maintaining legal fictions. The geographical naming rights is one such thing. Anybody anywhere can make any kind of cheese, but one cannot say the cheese is parmesian (or any other given example) cheese without being located in a certain region. There was a famouse case where a cheese maker in itally opened a new factory on the other sside of town which happened to be across the lambardi river, and suddenly they were no longer able to say that cheese was whatever kind of cheese... That is just one example of many... why legal fictions are bad arguments in Europe, and don't work internationally. One cannot demand other people unsee things they have seen (wipe their brain memory), and so it goes it's equally unjust to demand other people delete photos of them they have seen and recorded in photos. It's a lot more nuanced than that, and in some cases the privacy ideas are fully justified, but you get the idea.... there cannot be absolutism in either direction.
- em-bee 2y agojust consider parmesan to be a protected trademark owned by the people living in that area. should they not have the right to protect their trademark?
- Mashimo 2y ago> legal fictions are bad arguments in Europe What does that mean? What is a legal fuction?
- immibis 2y agoThey're disparaging laws they personally don't like by saying they are fictional.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dnissley 2y agoThere is a reasonable expectation of privacy. But we should distinguish between "privacy" with no qualifiers, and "digital privacy" which is a whole other thing. Some people see an equivalence. Others do not.
- EvanAnderson 2y agoWhat's the difference?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dnissley 2y agoOne relates to what people do in their own homes. The other relates to things people do on the internet.
- EvanAnderson 2y agoThe blurring of the line between "in your own home" and "on the Internet" is the crux of the issue. The average person doesn't understand that bringing Internet-connected devices into their home makes some quantity of "behavior in their home" into "behavior on the Internet".
- ryandrake 2y agoApplication developers are deliberately trying to blur the line, too, in their user interface. How many users really grok that when they use iCloud syncing with their photos, they are uploading their photos to the Internet? Since many of us grew up before and then after the Internet, we kind of instinctively get what application functionality needs the Internet, what functionality doesn't, what gets written to the Internet, what gets read from the Internet and so on. Younger computer/phone users don't get this at all. My 11 year old has no mental picture of why X requires Internet and Y doesn't require Internet. She doesn't understand the concept of Data A is stored on-device, and Data B is stored on the Internet. And honestly, I'm even having a harder and harder time explaining it. Tech applications have totally blurred and grayed the previously black-and-white line.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rootusrootus 2y ago> Expecting privacy has become unreasonable by definition. Hard disagree. The only unreasonable expectation is that you could go out in public and not be seen at all. It is entirely reasonable to expect not to be tracked, doxxed, etc. I would like to put the brakes on the idea that just because we can do something, it is okay to do it. The law was written when computers, networking, smartphones, and high resolution digital cameras did not exist. We could easily conclude that every bit of surveillance technology that did not exist in e.g. 1950 is illegal until explicitly permitted by law. Certain organizations would like to gaslight us into thinking that is impossible, that the cat is out of the bag so to speak. I do not agree. We can do it.
- em-bee 2y agothe opposite is true. as the article shows, according to the law of the time there was no right to privacy, and photos were not protected until the public protested and the laws were changed. likewise today any expectation of privacy is a matter of opinion. just because laws do not sufficiently protect our privacy, does not mean that we should give up any expectation of privacy. on the contrary, we need to demand better protection from out lawmakers. vote accordingly