3 ms·

It's the context that is important. As an example: Shohei Ohtani bought a house in Los Angeles a while ago, this transaction is public information by law and

• shiroiushi 2y ago
  That's a lot more defensible: Ohtani doesn't run a company that spies on billions of people. Zuckerberg does.
  • FredPret 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • ceejayoz 2y ago
      Facebook has plenty of data on people who didn’t click “I agree”. Some appear in photos uploaded by others. Some are profiled by Facebook’s like buttons scattered everywhere. They can surveil you without a single visit to Facebook.com.
      • johnnyanmac 2y ago
        For more info, look up shadow profiles. Scary stuff.
      • FredPret 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • ceejayoz 2y ago
          That’s a pretty big goalpost move.
          • FredPret 2y ago
            [flagged]
            • ceejayoz 2y ago
              First it was "it's not spying, you agreed to it!" When it's pointed out people surveilled by Facebook haven't necessarily agreed to any of it, the goalpost moved.
              • FredPret 2y ago
                Fair. But I think we score a goal for each of those posts. The vast majority of the data comes from users who did agree. The rest of the data, the portion the public didn’t agree to, is gathered in exactly the way that every other business has ever been able to do it when you go in public.
        • eszed 2y ago
          > this is an unavoidable part of having public spaces in society. Maybe, maybe not. It is something new - within the last twenty years or so - to the concept of either "privacy" or "public space". Laws and norms and people's intuitions were formed in a different technological and informational context. If you have a positive case for why passive surveillance of everyone is harmless (or, indeed, beneficial) to society (as a whole, not only those who engage in it) then please make it. Assuming it must be harmless or good begs the question.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
• johnnyanmac 2y ago
  A specific address is very different from a port a plane lands on. And the public has a lot less responsibility than the press.
• gamblor956 2y ago
  There's a big difference between this and tracking private jets: Ohtani couldn't use his house due to harassment from the papparazi and the weirdos who kept trying to jump the fence. Tracking billionaires' jets doesn't stop them from using their jets for their intended purposes.
  • Dalewyn 2y ago
    >There's a big difference No, there isn't. As far as what they are, Ohtani, Zuckerberg, Musk, and Joe Average are all just ordinary citizens unless I missed a memo. There is a difference in that someone like Zuckerberg is a more valuable target than others, but you're just making excuses to justify your snooping. The fact that Zuckerberg snoops doesn't excuse snooping on him, either.
    • gamblor956 2y ago
      Zuckerberg and Musk are not just ordinary citzens. Zuckerberg bought an entire island just to have his own private playground. Elon Musk brags about being the world's richest man and randomly ruins thousands of peoples' lives just because someone on the internet made him feel bad that morning. They're not ordinary people; they're people who made money by exploiting others. I don't think that the richest lawyers deserve my deference just because we're in the same they're also in tech.