3 ms·

I would contest that even in a public space you should have a reasonable expectation of privacy to accept anything less is to concede defeat the in entire argum

by smackay 14y ago

I would contest that even in a public space you should have a reasonable expectation of privacy to accept anything less is to concede defeat the in entire argument. For example if I trip over my shoelaces while walking along a street then my feelings of embarrassment are confined to the passers-by that witnessed the event. If someone happens to video the event and posts it on YouTube to everyones amusement then I would say that was a gross violation of my privacy.

tedunangst 14y ago
hmmm, so nobody should be allowed to record video in public? I mean, what if I'm recording my friend's party in the park and you trip in the background. Am I allowed to upload the video? Do I have to edit you out first? What if I upload the video figuring you're anonymous in it, but then a friend of a friend recognizes you and edits out just the highlights? This argument can be carried to extremes; I just prefer to draw the line at public spaces are public, which even if it's not the best demarcation, is at least fairly black and white. Regardless of that, I was talking about monitoring, not broadcasting. If the police cameras record what happens on every street corner and the video is archived for potential review, I think that's quite different than live streaming to the internet. Almost all of these arguments hinge on the police watching something, and then doing something unpleasant. Maybe the doing is inevitable, but I don't think that's a foregone conclusion, so therefore I also don't think such what if scenarios are slam dunk indictments of monitoring itself.
- smackay 14y ago
  A "reasonable expectation" can only ever be a standard for conduct rather than a law. The important part of this perspective is that members of the general public are allowed to conduct their affairs without monitoring or intrusion by default, a baseline if you like. From there it become much easier to determine whether people in positions of authority have a credible need for surveillance. In the free-for-all, unless explicitly banned, world that we have today this is impossible to control.
jes5199 14y ago
It seems to me that this point of view is becoming less and less common - now that most people have cameras in their pocket, we're starting to lose the intellectual distinction between "seeing" and "recording", and without that it's hard to have any nuance about what you are and aren't allowed to do with video you captured in public. Eventually, there will be new social norms about it, but for now, you must expect that "in public" means "potentially seen by any person on Earth"

by smackay 14y ago

tedunangst 14y ago

hmmm, so nobody should be allowed to record video in public? I mean, what if I'm recording my friend's party in the park and you trip in the background. Am I allowed to upload the video? Do I have to edit you out first? What if I upload the video figuring you're anonymous in it, but then a friend of a friend recognizes you and edits out just the highlights? This argument can be carried to extremes; I just prefer to draw the line at public spaces are public, which even if it's not the best demarcation, is at least fairly black and white. Regardless of that, I was talking about monitoring, not broadcasting. If the police cameras record what happens on every street corner and the video is archived for potential review, I think that's quite different than live streaming to the internet. Almost all of these arguments hinge on the police watching something, and then doing something unpleasant. Maybe the doing is inevitable, but I don't think that's a foregone conclusion, so therefore I also don't think such what if scenarios are slam dunk indictments of monitoring itself.

smackay 14y ago
A "reasonable expectation" can only ever be a standard for conduct rather than a law. The important part of this perspective is that members of the general public are allowed to conduct their affairs without monitoring or intrusion by default, a baseline if you like. From there it become much easier to determine whether people in positions of authority have a credible need for surveillance. In the free-for-all, unless explicitly banned, world that we have today this is impossible to control.

jes5199 14y ago

It seems to me that this point of view is becoming less and less common - now that most people have cameras in their pocket, we're starting to lose the intellectual distinction between "seeing" and "recording", and without that it's hard to have any nuance about what you are and aren't allowed to do with video you captured in public. Eventually, there will be new social norms about it, but for now, you must expect that "in public" means "potentially seen by any person on Earth"