3 ms·
The right to privacy is not boolean. There is a spectrum of reasonable expectations of privacy. Also, the right to privacy in public is not necessarily zero.
by kube-system 2y ago
The right to privacy is not boolean. There is a spectrum of reasonable expectations of privacy. Also, the right to privacy in public is not necessarily zero. The varying degree of rights to privacy in public are less than in private settings, but often greater than zero.
While your insurer may, by happenstance, see your license plate while you are driving around, they certainly are not following you 100% of the time. The degree to which your location is tracked when your license plate is plainly visible, is different than degree of privacy expectation when that location is being automatically recorded.
> So when it's in public, the location of your car is not "private" information.
It's just not that simple. It would be nice and convenient if "private" was a boolean value. But it is very much a float type:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)
- fn-mote 2y ago> they certainly are not following you 100% of the time I don’t follow the argument being made here. The state of modern surveillance is different from what is described. People are consenting to precise monitoring for slightly lower insurance premiums. The question is: should it be illegal (should we fight against monitoring) for some moral/philosophical reason, or are we accepting it because that’s the way things are.
- kube-system 2y agoThere is not necessarily informed consent with the type of informatics data collection described in these suits. This isn’t a lawsuit about a “progressive snapshot” type of device. It has been described by many that these vehicles had been opted in at the dealer with little to no notification, and the data subsequently sold to brokers, who then sold the data to insurers.