4 ms·

Of course I see a difference among those. Where did I indicate anything to the contrary, or on the topic at all? How am I supposed to take you privacy advocate

Of course I see a difference among those. Where did I indicate anything to the contrary, or on the topic at all? How am I supposed to take you privacy advocates seriously when you make such wild logical leaps?

unethical_ban 2y ago
Because your statement makes no point unless it is a defense of current technology. Most people don't expect others to look away while you pick your nose at the grocery store. The statement about defending privacy in public is almost always about tracking and the ease of it.
- try_the_bass 2y ago
  That wasn't the statement I was replying to, though? Please re-read the thread, without injecting your own pre-conceived notions into it? The statement was simply this: "Because my business is my business and nobody else's. Full stop." When it comes to being in public or at a grocery store, this is simply untrue. Being in public involves interacting with other people, at which point it inherently ceases to be just your business, and starts to be others', too. That entitles them to some amount of say in it, however small it might be, depending on the context. No where did I say anything about the degree of surveillance?
  - unethical_ban 2y ago
    I did inject my preconceived notion into it. You are correct. Because usually, when someone says "my business is my business", they don't mean "no one has the right to look at me when I'm out in public". That kind of statement about my business being mine in public, is usually tied to tracking and/or persistent, shareable surveillance video.
    - try_the_bass 2y ago
      But the original statement is still a false statement, is it not? If others are free to observe you while you are in public with them, are they not also free to do whatever they wish with that information? Same as you are free to attempt to share as little as possible with them. Public spaces are commons, and private spaces are subject to the rules of their owners, as you are also bound by them, in some form. Once you leave your own property, what you do ceases to be your business alone, and begins to also be someone else's. There are clearly matters of degree, but it's also impossible to be in public without broadcasting copious amounts of personal information. If others in public are equipped to collect that information in whatever form it takes, why is that suddenly wrong? Disagreeing with that tells me that by saying "my business is only my business, and nobody else's" you really mean "no one has the right to observe me/interact with me in public". Otherwise, you'd have to agree with my earlier statements, right?
      - nobody9999 2y ago
        >But the original statement is still a false statement, is it not? It is not. Full stop.
        try_the_bass 2y ago
        You've yet to provide any rational argument that makes this case, though? You just keep repeating it as fact, when it's not clear that it is fact.
      - unethical_ban 2y ago
        >If others in public are equipped to collect that information in whatever form it takes, why is that suddenly wrong? Legally, it may not be. But it's creepy and invasive. Doxxing is a net negative to society. And more than individuals catching me in photos or videos incidentally, is the problem of surveillance and tracking, something I have mentioned repeatedly and you have failed to acknowledge. First came CCTV, then comes ubiquitous cheap video storage, now comes AI that can analyze that video in real time for identification and behavioral analysis. I'll flip your question on its head: why is it the default that people should consent to ubiquitous machine-based activity monitoring by all their peers and their government, just because the technology exists? What's the benefit? If society has lived without ubiquitous surveillance and automated behavioral analytics and tracking for all history, why is it suddenly right?
    - nobody9999 2y ago
      >That kind of statement about my business being mine in public, is usually tied to tracking and/or persistent, shareable surveillance video. Sorry for the late reply. Exactly. From a fairly broad perspective, I do mean "my business is my business," but as another commenter noted, it's not only my business. And I agree. It's also the concern of those with whom I interact, both directly (e.g., talking to a cashier as I make a purchase at a grocery store) or indirectly (e.g., whether or not I litter). In those cases, it's also the cashier and whoever maintains the street's business as well. Which is so blindingly obvious I didn't think it needed explication. My apologies for any confusion. In any case, I find the idea that I, Nobody9999, should be tracked, surveilled and/or otherwise profiled, in the course of my everyday activities to be quite offensive. Unfortunately, unless I want to live "off the grid" (i.e., cower in a leanto out in the woods somewhere), I have to submit to some of that. And more's the pity. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. Nor does it mean I have to pretend it's not a direct affront to my (and everyone else's) privacy.
      - try_the_bass 2y ago
        I was that other commenter, and you just disagreed with me (again!) in my sibling reply. I'm really confused, and you're not making any sense.

unethical_ban 2y ago

Because your statement makes no point unless it is a defense of current technology. Most people don't expect others to look away while you pick your nose at the grocery store. The statement about defending privacy in public is almost always about tracking and the ease of it.

try_the_bass 2y ago
That wasn't the statement I was replying to, though? Please re-read the thread, without injecting your own pre-conceived notions into it? The statement was simply this: "Because my business is my business and nobody else's. Full stop." When it comes to being in public or at a grocery store, this is simply untrue. Being in public involves interacting with other people, at which point it inherently ceases to be just your business, and starts to be others', too. That entitles them to some amount of say in it, however small it might be, depending on the context. No where did I say anything about the degree of surveillance?
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  I did inject my preconceived notion into it. You are correct. Because usually, when someone says "my business is my business", they don't mean "no one has the right to look at me when I'm out in public". That kind of statement about my business being mine in public, is usually tied to tracking and/or persistent, shareable surveillance video.
  - try_the_bass 2y ago
    But the original statement is still a false statement, is it not? If others are free to observe you while you are in public with them, are they not also free to do whatever they wish with that information? Same as you are free to attempt to share as little as possible with them. Public spaces are commons, and private spaces are subject to the rules of their owners, as you are also bound by them, in some form. Once you leave your own property, what you do ceases to be your business alone, and begins to also be someone else's. There are clearly matters of degree, but it's also impossible to be in public without broadcasting copious amounts of personal information. If others in public are equipped to collect that information in whatever form it takes, why is that suddenly wrong? Disagreeing with that tells me that by saying "my business is only my business, and nobody else's" you really mean "no one has the right to observe me/interact with me in public". Otherwise, you'd have to agree with my earlier statements, right?
    - nobody9999 2y ago
      >But the original statement is still a false statement, is it not? It is not. Full stop.
      - try_the_bass 2y ago
        You've yet to provide any rational argument that makes this case, though? You just keep repeating it as fact, when it's not clear that it is fact.
    - unethical_ban 2y ago
      >If others in public are equipped to collect that information in whatever form it takes, why is that suddenly wrong? Legally, it may not be. But it's creepy and invasive. Doxxing is a net negative to society. And more than individuals catching me in photos or videos incidentally, is the problem of surveillance and tracking, something I have mentioned repeatedly and you have failed to acknowledge. First came CCTV, then comes ubiquitous cheap video storage, now comes AI that can analyze that video in real time for identification and behavioral analysis. I'll flip your question on its head: why is it the default that people should consent to ubiquitous machine-based activity monitoring by all their peers and their government, just because the technology exists? What's the benefit? If society has lived without ubiquitous surveillance and automated behavioral analytics and tracking for all history, why is it suddenly right?
  - nobody9999 2y ago
    >That kind of statement about my business being mine in public, is usually tied to tracking and/or persistent, shareable surveillance video. Sorry for the late reply. Exactly. From a fairly broad perspective, I do mean "my business is my business," but as another commenter noted, it's not only my business. And I agree. It's also the concern of those with whom I interact, both directly (e.g., talking to a cashier as I make a purchase at a grocery store) or indirectly (e.g., whether or not I litter). In those cases, it's also the cashier and whoever maintains the street's business as well. Which is so blindingly obvious I didn't think it needed explication. My apologies for any confusion. In any case, I find the idea that I, Nobody9999, should be tracked, surveilled and/or otherwise profiled, in the course of my everyday activities to be quite offensive. Unfortunately, unless I want to live "off the grid" (i.e., cower in a leanto out in the woods somewhere), I have to submit to some of that. And more's the pity. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. Nor does it mean I have to pretend it's not a direct affront to my (and everyone else's) privacy.
    - try_the_bass 2y ago
      I was that other commenter, and you just disagreed with me (again!) in my sibling reply. I'm really confused, and you're not making any sense.