4 ms·

You have no expectation of privacy in public. Your right to seclusion or privacy does not extend to public spaces.

by urda 2y ago

thatguy0900 2y ago
Honestly there are a lot of laws that don't really make sense given modern technology. It's one thing to say people have no expectation of privacy when people only have cameras, or even have to purposefully videotape you. It's another to say you will 100% be recorded in HD at all times in public and that data will be sold to any random third party to do whatever with and store forever
- dotancohen 2y ago
  Or that the police might decide to confiscate your vehicle on the chance that one of its cameras recorded a crime you were not involved with.
vundercind 2y ago
Something doesn’t have to be illegal to be bad.
- jstummbillig 2y ago
  But you can certainly do something illegal more easily if you have more privacy.
  - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
    Well, you can do the illegal thing either way. Not getting caught is a different story. In general, though, I'd rather have privacy even though I'm not doing anything illegal and, though it pains me to say it, I'd rather they don't tow Teslas just for being nearby.
- fallingsquirrel 2y ago
  Maybe so, but this isn't the way to fix it. Two wrongs don't make a right. The natural conclusion of your line of thought is that the police should be able to enforce against things they personally think are "bad", rather than just enforcing the law. Not the world I want to live in, thanks.
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    > The natural conclusion of your line of thought is that the police should be able to enforce against things they personally think are "bad", rather than just enforcing the law. Got some bad news for you about the average cop's knowledge of an understanding of the laws they enforce.
izacus 2y ago
Where I live, I do.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  How does that work? People take photos and videos whenever they go right? In practice people will get caught in others’ footage all the time. So how can you ban public recording without also banning all photography?
  - I_am_uncreative 2y ago
    In many cases, you're obligated to not record people in public without their permission. That's the norm, for example, in Sweden, apparently.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      Do people really get permission though? Like what if you’re in some crowded area - for example taking photos of some landmark? You’re not going to be able to conceivably chase down 10+ people and get their permissions. I imagine most people just record whatever they do and upload it to their social media.
      - JohnFen 2y ago
        > I imagine most people just record whatever they do and upload it to their social media. Perhaps, but at least in countries that have reasonable laws about this, anyone who finds themselves in pictures/video they didn't consent to has some method of recourse.
      - orwin 2y ago
        So basically in France, but i think this is from EU directives (directives are not laws, just "please we want to have at least this implemented in your country" but any country can ignore them if they want): - you can't record public places without being present (police is excluded, but private shop owners not, hence you can't have camera filing anything other than the inside of your shop) - You can't record children in any way without their explicit consent and, if they're younger than YY (i don't remember), their parent consent, if they can be identified. Anyway, you can't publish any record where a child can be recognized without explicit consent (you have to blur them even if you post it on a private group in social media ideally) (not 100% sure about that, i think you have at least 3 laws that intersect here) - You can record adults in public places. You cannot post your recording without explicit consent (blur them when in doubt).
mattmanser 2y ago
An outdated argument that hasn't kept up with modern technology. Previously surveillance was expensive and hard, now it's cheap and easy. This argument was invented in modern times to justify stripping the anonymity of the crowd from the general populace and is destroying the freedom from constant surveillance we once took for granted.

You have no expectation of privacy in public. Your right to seclusion or privacy does not extend to public spaces.

by urda 2y ago

You have no expectation of privacy in public. Your right to seclusion or privacy does not extend to public spaces.

Honestly there are a lot of laws that don't really make sense given modern technology. It's one thing to say people have no expectation of privacy when people only have cameras, or even have to purposefully videotape you. It's another to say you will 100% be recorded in HD at all times in public and that data will be sold to any random third party to do whatever with and store forever

dotancohen 2y ago
Or that the police might decide to confiscate your vehicle on the chance that one of its cameras recorded a crime you were not involved with.

vundercind 2y ago

Something doesn’t have to be illegal to be bad.

jstummbillig 2y ago
But you can certainly do something illegal more easily if you have more privacy.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  Well, you can do the illegal thing either way. Not getting caught is a different story. In general, though, I'd rather have privacy even though I'm not doing anything illegal and, though it pains me to say it, I'd rather they don't tow Teslas just for being nearby.
fallingsquirrel 2y ago
Maybe so, but this isn't the way to fix it. Two wrongs don't make a right. The natural conclusion of your line of thought is that the police should be able to enforce against things they personally think are "bad", rather than just enforcing the law. Not the world I want to live in, thanks.
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  > The natural conclusion of your line of thought is that the police should be able to enforce against things they personally think are "bad", rather than just enforcing the law. Got some bad news for you about the average cop's knowledge of an understanding of the laws they enforce.

izacus 2y ago

Where I live, I do.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
How does that work? People take photos and videos whenever they go right? In practice people will get caught in others’ footage all the time. So how can you ban public recording without also banning all photography?
- I_am_uncreative 2y ago
  In many cases, you're obligated to not record people in public without their permission. That's the norm, for example, in Sweden, apparently.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    Do people really get permission though? Like what if you’re in some crowded area - for example taking photos of some landmark? You’re not going to be able to conceivably chase down 10+ people and get their permissions. I imagine most people just record whatever they do and upload it to their social media.
    - JohnFen 2y ago
      > I imagine most people just record whatever they do and upload it to their social media. Perhaps, but at least in countries that have reasonable laws about this, anyone who finds themselves in pictures/video they didn't consent to has some method of recourse.
    - orwin 2y ago
      So basically in France, but i think this is from EU directives (directives are not laws, just "please we want to have at least this implemented in your country" but any country can ignore them if they want): - you can't record public places without being present (police is excluded, but private shop owners not, hence you can't have camera filing anything other than the inside of your shop) - You can't record children in any way without their explicit consent and, if they're younger than YY (i don't remember), their parent consent, if they can be identified. Anyway, you can't publish any record where a child can be recognized without explicit consent (you have to blur them even if you post it on a private group in social media ideally) (not 100% sure about that, i think you have at least 3 laws that intersect here) - You can record adults in public places. You cannot post your recording without explicit consent (blur them when in doubt).

mattmanser 2y ago

An outdated argument that hasn't kept up with modern technology. Previously surveillance was expensive and hard, now it's cheap and easy. This argument was invented in modern times to justify stripping the anonymity of the crowd from the general populace and is destroying the freedom from constant surveillance we once took for granted.