4 ms·

You have zero expectation of privacy in public

crooked-v 2y ago
There's a huge difference between the historical intent of that principle and the way that these days everyone in a given space can be exhaustively recorded and tracked 24/7.
- hibikir 2y ago
  The availability of cheap sick is what makes the lack of privacy naturally different. There was a time where a police department could identify a suspect, talk to a judge, and then had that person followed for a while, dedicating multiple people to the efforts. With enough cameras and disk space, you now identify a person, and they were pre-followed for who knows how long. Then again, it depends on where you are. One could have thought that finding a specific guy in NYC after you had him on camera at a given time would be easy, but they aren't so easy to locate immediately.
- wpietri 2y ago
  For sure, and I think a key change here is asymmetry. Previously in public I'd have a reasonable chance of knowing that somebody was watching or following me. Between cameras, networks, and high-capacity recording, that's all out the window. I'd feel much better about if we heavily surveilled the use of surveillance. E.g., every access is recorded both in terms of metadata and in terms of generating video of whoever's looking. And if I'm in something they're looking at, I get notified (barring temporary legal exceptions for open investigations and the like).
HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
This saying isn't even true. Many countries have cultural expectations and legal structures providing some level of privacy in public. The very first GDPR fine issued stemmed from a business security camera that needlessly recorded people on the sidewalk.
- UltraSane 2y ago
  How can you expect privacy when an unlimited number of cameras could be recording you?
  - itishappy 2y ago
    You reasonably can't. As a society, we need to choose between individual privacy and the pervasive use of invasive cameras. Regulations can be made to protect one or the other. The US seems to be going one way, the EU another.
    - UltraSane 2y ago
      How can you regulate the use of cameras in private company buildings or outside? Is it currently illegal for a EU company to have every square foot of a office building covered by 2 cameras and have a sophisticated analytics program that records exactly where every employee is at any time and what they are likely doing?
      - itishappy 2y ago
        Pass and enforce regulations? For instance, it's illegal in the US to put a security camera facing directly into your neighbors bedroom. In you office example, I suspect they have at least the same protections we have in the US about recording in bathrooms.
        UltraSane 2y ago
        But there is a legitimate public safety argument for some level of surveillance so it is a very tricky balance to get right.
  - gosub100 2y ago
    Merely recording is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to invasion of privacy.
- deleted 2y ago
Mashimo 2y ago
I actually have, by law even :)
unethical_ban 2y ago
The ease of mass surveillance and analysis/tracking makes it worse. Machine powered automatic analysis and tracking is more than just video recording. I hope that difference is apparent.

There's a huge difference between the historical intent of that principle and the way that these days everyone in a given space can be exhaustively recorded and tracked 24/7.

hibikir 2y ago
The availability of cheap sick is what makes the lack of privacy naturally different. There was a time where a police department could identify a suspect, talk to a judge, and then had that person followed for a while, dedicating multiple people to the efforts. With enough cameras and disk space, you now identify a person, and they were pre-followed for who knows how long. Then again, it depends on where you are. One could have thought that finding a specific guy in NYC after you had him on camera at a given time would be easy, but they aren't so easy to locate immediately.
wpietri 2y ago
For sure, and I think a key change here is asymmetry. Previously in public I'd have a reasonable chance of knowing that somebody was watching or following me. Between cameras, networks, and high-capacity recording, that's all out the window. I'd feel much better about if we heavily surveilled the use of surveillance. E.g., every access is recorded both in terms of metadata and in terms of generating video of whoever's looking. And if I'm in something they're looking at, I get notified (barring temporary legal exceptions for open investigations and the like).

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago

This saying isn't even true. Many countries have cultural expectations and legal structures providing some level of privacy in public. The very first GDPR fine issued stemmed from a business security camera that needlessly recorded people on the sidewalk.

UltraSane 2y ago
How can you expect privacy when an unlimited number of cameras could be recording you?
- itishappy 2y ago
  You reasonably can't. As a society, we need to choose between individual privacy and the pervasive use of invasive cameras. Regulations can be made to protect one or the other. The US seems to be going one way, the EU another.
  - UltraSane 2y ago
    How can you regulate the use of cameras in private company buildings or outside? Is it currently illegal for a EU company to have every square foot of a office building covered by 2 cameras and have a sophisticated analytics program that records exactly where every employee is at any time and what they are likely doing?
    - itishappy 2y ago
      Pass and enforce regulations? For instance, it's illegal in the US to put a security camera facing directly into your neighbors bedroom. In you office example, I suspect they have at least the same protections we have in the US about recording in bathrooms.
      - UltraSane 2y ago
        But there is a legitimate public safety argument for some level of surveillance so it is a very tricky balance to get right.
- gosub100 2y ago
  Merely recording is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to invasion of privacy.
deleted 2y ago

Mashimo 2y ago

I actually have, by law even :)

unethical_ban 2y ago

The ease of mass surveillance and analysis/tracking makes it worse. Machine powered automatic analysis and tracking is more than just video recording. I hope that difference is apparent.