11 ms·

The throwaway line in TFA about village life and the section about common law recognizing no right to privacy both highlight my thoughts on this. In prior years

The throwaway line in TFA about village life and the section about common law recognizing no right to privacy both highlight my thoughts on this. In prior years we didn't have cameras preserving all our moments in 4K for all time, but as humans we had so little happening in our hamlets/villages, that most of our neighbors knew everything about us and all of our individual actions were never forgotten. Just like how you still remember all the embarrassing things different kids at your high school did (for me, 20+ years later). Life in a village was likely that same dynamic but for a person's whole life, not just high school

mulmen 2y ago
I only remember the embarrassing things I did. And because I graduated in the pager era there are very few photographs to remind me of what I have forgotten.
ghaff 2y ago
Yeah, the scale of things is different but the idea that everyone in your town (or your social circles) didn't know more or less everything about you is counterfactual.
rootusrootus 2y ago
We did not need a strict law about privacy when the only way to surveil and preserve information was to use your eyes and brain. And given that everyone tends to be their own main character, even that level of preservation was not terribly effective. The rise of computers and the ability to record things in near perfect fidelity is a problem. I hope we can get a handle on it before it gets much worse.
- whstl 2y ago
  Maybe we need to start preserving those things in AI neural nets so they are a bit fuzzy and slightly inaccurate!
  - plussed_reader 2y ago
    Ah, proprietary recollection! Surely that won't engender an entire middle-man economy.
- maxwell 2y ago
  > the ability to record things in near perfect fidelity is a problem Ancient Egyptians and Romans would seem to have relished such a problem.
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    Why do you think that?
    - maxwell 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_art https://archive.md/n3eiy https://archive.md/n3eiy
wongarsu 2y ago
And if you move away (to escape your past or for other reasons), any new village you move to will treat you as a tolerated outsider for 20+ years because you didn't go to the same kindergarten as them.
- o11c 2y ago
  And, by and large, they were right to do so. In the absence of a very strong central government, the only way to protect yourself from criminals (or other social problems) is to assume all outsiders are problematic. Allowing "escape your past" is generally not socially desirable.
  - Fnoord 2y ago
    Except when it turns out all the insiders are problematic, like in Dogville.
    - o11c 2y ago
      From the PoV of the insiders of Dogville? I think my point stands.
ryukoposting 2y ago
Another critical shift in the last ~120 years is the ease with which private information can be productized. I say 120 years because I believe the Kodak Brownie No. 2 was the inflection point. Other film cameras existed before that point, but did not have user-replaceable film - you would return the whole camera to Kodak and they'd send you back prints and a new camera. Thus, before the Brownie No. 2, the camera's owner had never posessed the negative itself. For the first time, an indisputably real account of an event could be reproduced over and over, on demand, with a low financial barrier to entry, and in any shape or size the negative's owner could imagine. Obviously, the internet age has come with its own staggering paradigm shifts. Sure, private information may not be more sensitive than it ever was. But, it is easier than ever before to distribute it for profit.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Yeah, there are important qualitative differences between the steps of: 1. Neighbor X claims they saw {embarrassing thing} 2. Neighbor X has objective proof that the event occurred 3. Here's a picture of the event 4. Here's a picture which is endlessly duplicable and broadcastable
- JohnFen 2y ago
  My issue is this. Or, more specifically, I think the actual privacy invasion doesn't come from the use of cameras, it comes from the use of databases. I honestly don't care even a little if I happen to appear in (or even are the subject of) a random photo taken by a regular person. I care a lot if I appear in a commercially-operated snapshot/video. The difference is that a regular person probably isn't going to include that photo/video and related metadata in a database where it will be combined with the contents of other databases and weaponized against me. Yes, I know they may upload it to Facebook and such, where it is weaponized. That does bother me, but I choose to ignore that part except to make sure that my friends and family don't do it.
  - judge2020 2y ago
    > I care a lot if I appear in a commercially-operated snapshot/video. This is where likeness rights come into place. A commercial entity can't use your image as an endorsement of their product or in marketing materials without your consent, which is why many production companies err on the side of making sure they vet every face in every image of their marketing material. > The difference is that a regular person probably isn't going to include that photo/video and related metadata in a database where it will be combined with the contents of other databases and weaponized against me. As you said in the next paragraph, this is impossible to prevent without stripping people of their copyrights to use their work however they please, including by sharing on social media or uploading to a extremely value-oriented service (like Google Photos) that only provides their services for free/cheap because of the value they get from being able to "improve the product" using user content.
dblt4k3 2y ago
[dead]
thayne 2y ago
There is a huge difference between people in your village, that you grew up with, knowing a lot about you, and strangers from halfway around the world knowing things about your personal life.
- account42 2y ago
  And more importantly the relationship was much more symmetrical - you know about as much about your neighbors as they know about you and for the most part neither has more power over the other. This is not true today where someone who you have never even heard of could be offended by something you said or did and choose to weaponize public knowledge against you.
Hasu 2y ago
> Life in a village was likely that same dynamic but for a person's whole life, not just high school One BIG difference between high school and ordinary life is that high school is filled with a bunch of adolescents who are forced to be in a place where there isn't much to do for fun other than gossip about the other adolescents. Given that adolescence is a time when humans are maximally embarrassing and maximally interested in other adolescents' embarrassment, I don't think it's a good model for general life. People in small towns and villages today do not act like high schoolers, and they are perfectly capable of keeping secrets from each other. You don't need a legally enshrined right to privacy when your most dangerous threat model is Fred down the street who is a nosy twerp.
fennecbutt 2y ago
Except you were always being watched by everyone, especially back then. If you did something the church didn't like, hoo boy would your friends and neighbors tell on you. Be gay, act like a "witch" etc...to the fire with you.

mulmen 2y ago

I only remember the embarrassing things I did. And because I graduated in the pager era there are very few photographs to remind me of what I have forgotten.

ghaff 2y ago

Yeah, the scale of things is different but the idea that everyone in your town (or your social circles) didn't know more or less everything about you is counterfactual.

rootusrootus 2y ago

We did not need a strict law about privacy when the only way to surveil and preserve information was to use your eyes and brain. And given that everyone tends to be their own main character, even that level of preservation was not terribly effective. The rise of computers and the ability to record things in near perfect fidelity is a problem. I hope we can get a handle on it before it gets much worse.

whstl 2y ago
Maybe we need to start preserving those things in AI neural nets so they are a bit fuzzy and slightly inaccurate!
- plussed_reader 2y ago
  Ah, proprietary recollection! Surely that won't engender an entire middle-man economy.
maxwell 2y ago
> the ability to record things in near perfect fidelity is a problem Ancient Egyptians and Romans would seem to have relished such a problem.
- saagarjha 2y ago
  Why do you think that?
  - maxwell 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_art https://archive.md/n3eiy https://archive.md/n3eiy

wongarsu 2y ago

And if you move away (to escape your past or for other reasons), any new village you move to will treat you as a tolerated outsider for 20+ years because you didn't go to the same kindergarten as them.

o11c 2y ago
And, by and large, they were right to do so. In the absence of a very strong central government, the only way to protect yourself from criminals (or other social problems) is to assume all outsiders are problematic. Allowing "escape your past" is generally not socially desirable.
- Fnoord 2y ago
  Except when it turns out all the insiders are problematic, like in Dogville.
  - o11c 2y ago
    From the PoV of the insiders of Dogville? I think my point stands.

ryukoposting 2y ago

Another critical shift in the last ~120 years is the ease with which private information can be productized. I say 120 years because I believe the Kodak Brownie No. 2 was the inflection point. Other film cameras existed before that point, but did not have user-replaceable film - you would return the whole camera to Kodak and they'd send you back prints and a new camera. Thus, before the Brownie No. 2, the camera's owner had never posessed the negative itself. For the first time, an indisputably real account of an event could be reproduced over and over, on demand, with a low financial barrier to entry, and in any shape or size the negative's owner could imagine. Obviously, the internet age has come with its own staggering paradigm shifts. Sure, private information may not be more sensitive than it ever was. But, it is easier than ever before to distribute it for profit.

Terr_ 2y ago
Yeah, there are important qualitative differences between the steps of: 1. Neighbor X claims they saw {embarrassing thing} 2. Neighbor X has objective proof that the event occurred 3. Here's a picture of the event 4. Here's a picture which is endlessly duplicable and broadcastable
JohnFen 2y ago
My issue is this. Or, more specifically, I think the actual privacy invasion doesn't come from the use of cameras, it comes from the use of databases. I honestly don't care even a little if I happen to appear in (or even are the subject of) a random photo taken by a regular person. I care a lot if I appear in a commercially-operated snapshot/video. The difference is that a regular person probably isn't going to include that photo/video and related metadata in a database where it will be combined with the contents of other databases and weaponized against me. Yes, I know they may upload it to Facebook and such, where it is weaponized. That does bother me, but I choose to ignore that part except to make sure that my friends and family don't do it.
- judge2020 2y ago
  > I care a lot if I appear in a commercially-operated snapshot/video. This is where likeness rights come into place. A commercial entity can't use your image as an endorsement of their product or in marketing materials without your consent, which is why many production companies err on the side of making sure they vet every face in every image of their marketing material. > The difference is that a regular person probably isn't going to include that photo/video and related metadata in a database where it will be combined with the contents of other databases and weaponized against me. As you said in the next paragraph, this is impossible to prevent without stripping people of their copyrights to use their work however they please, including by sharing on social media or uploading to a extremely value-oriented service (like Google Photos) that only provides their services for free/cheap because of the value they get from being able to "improve the product" using user content.

dblt4k3 2y ago

[dead]

thayne 2y ago

There is a huge difference between people in your village, that you grew up with, knowing a lot about you, and strangers from halfway around the world knowing things about your personal life.

account42 2y ago
And more importantly the relationship was much more symmetrical - you know about as much about your neighbors as they know about you and for the most part neither has more power over the other. This is not true today where someone who you have never even heard of could be offended by something you said or did and choose to weaponize public knowledge against you.

Hasu 2y ago

> Life in a village was likely that same dynamic but for a person's whole life, not just high school One BIG difference between high school and ordinary life is that high school is filled with a bunch of adolescents who are forced to be in a place where there isn't much to do for fun other than gossip about the other adolescents. Given that adolescence is a time when humans are maximally embarrassing and maximally interested in other adolescents' embarrassment, I don't think it's a good model for general life. People in small towns and villages today do not act like high schoolers, and they are perfectly capable of keeping secrets from each other. You don't need a legally enshrined right to privacy when your most dangerous threat model is Fred down the street who is a nosy twerp.

fennecbutt 2y ago

Except you were always being watched by everyone, especially back then. If you did something the church didn't like, hoo boy would your friends and neighbors tell on you. Be gay, act like a "witch" etc...to the fire with you.