4 ms·

If you talk to your friends in person in a public space, would you be comfortable with restauranteurs stealthily following you around and analyzing your convers

by shawnz 1y ago

If you talk to your friends in person in a public space, would you be comfortable with restauranteurs stealthily following you around and analyzing your conversations? Why is social media any different? There are clearly different degrees to which information that is presented in a public space is expected to be disseminated to strangers. Simply being "made public" doesn't necessarily invite invasive spying on every detail of your public actions

satvikpendem 1y ago
> If you talk to your friends in person in a public space, would you be comfortable with restauranteurs stealthily following you around and analyzing your conversations? Why is social media any different? Exactly, there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, so your friends should go to a private place if they want a private conversation (and similarly not have public social media profiles), not talking within earshot of others and expecting privacy, that people would close their ears while one talks. Restaurants, stores, and other such areas are explicitly not private places, I can't tell you the number of times I can hear embarrassing stories with no extra effort in my part, simply because people talk loud enough to hear.
- shawnz 1y ago
  Sure, but my question isn't whether you can expect perfect privacy in a public place or not. Obviously you can not, but we live in a trust-based society. My question is whether you think it is socially acceptable to abuse that trust. If it isn't in public, then it shouldn't be on social media either.
  - satvikpendem 1y ago
    > If it isn't in public, then it shouldn't be on social media either. That is exactly what I'm saying so I'm not sure we disagree. Don't put things on social media you don't want people to see, or at least make your profiles private, because people can and will look and you can't expect otherwise.
    - shawnz 1y ago
      I think you're still answering a different question than I'm asking. We certainly agree that social media and in-person conversations in public spaces have the same expectation of privacy, but that's not the point I'm getting at. What I am asking is, don't you think it would be considered inappropriate to spy on such conversations even though it's technically and legally possible to do so? Our judgments as to what is considered socially acceptable behaviour aren't strictly ruled by what is technically or legally possible, nor should they be.
      - satvikpendem 1y ago
        No, I don't find it inappropriate, nor would I call it spying at all. I wrote in another comment that I consider social media searching more like yelling in a public square and thinking that anyone who overhears your shouting is "spying" on you. That is essentially exactly what one is doing when they post publicly on social media.
        shawnz 1y ago
        And if social media users in general broadly disagree with you about that (which seems to be the case, given the confusion), who's to say who is right about this totally subjective standard by which we judge appropriateness? Isn't it society at large which gets to decide societal principles?
        satvikpendem 1y ago
        Sure, but I don't believe they do disagree though, as I stated in my initial comment that it's generally only those on HN who disagree, a vocal minority. The article shows how regular people don't care, they find it even better service than normal to be catered to. So if that's the case, by your logic, we should agree that it is appropriate, right?
        shawnz 1y ago
        You might be right that this isn't a particularly good example, but I'm not convinced that finding this to be inappropriate is an opinion that's just limited to technologists. I would be interested to see the reader comments on an article like this (but it seems they don't have those on sfgate).
- asdf6969 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - satvikpendem 1y ago
    People post videos of others in public all the time, do you think they ask every single person on YouTube to sign a consent waiver to be filmed? There's no "gotcha" as you're implying, those are all things people do already without creepiness.
    - asdf6969 1y ago
      This is ok to you? You’re a creep. Maybe you’re the guy in this article https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-jarry-park-voyeurism-1.7578264 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-jarry-park-...
      - satvikpendem 1y ago
        Voyeurism is an actual crime compared to what restaurants in this thread are doing. Don't create a false equivalence where there is none.
        asdf6969 1y ago
        What if the restaurant followed you with a drone and took pictures of everything you ate in public for a month?
        satvikpendem 1y ago
        Is that not also voyeurism? There is a difference between the real world and online, to most normal people, hence my initial comment saying generally only HNers seem to equate the two.
        asdf6969 1y ago
        [flagged]

by shawnz 1y ago

satvikpendem 1y ago

> If you talk to your friends in person in a public space, would you be comfortable with restauranteurs stealthily following you around and analyzing your conversations? Why is social media any different? Exactly, there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, so your friends should go to a private place if they want a private conversation (and similarly not have public social media profiles), not talking within earshot of others and expecting privacy, that people would close their ears while one talks. Restaurants, stores, and other such areas are explicitly not private places, I can't tell you the number of times I can hear embarrassing stories with no extra effort in my part, simply because people talk loud enough to hear.

shawnz 1y ago
Sure, but my question isn't whether you can expect perfect privacy in a public place or not. Obviously you can not, but we live in a trust-based society. My question is whether you think it is socially acceptable to abuse that trust. If it isn't in public, then it shouldn't be on social media either.
- satvikpendem 1y ago
  > If it isn't in public, then it shouldn't be on social media either. That is exactly what I'm saying so I'm not sure we disagree. Don't put things on social media you don't want people to see, or at least make your profiles private, because people can and will look and you can't expect otherwise.
  - shawnz 1y ago
    I think you're still answering a different question than I'm asking. We certainly agree that social media and in-person conversations in public spaces have the same expectation of privacy, but that's not the point I'm getting at. What I am asking is, don't you think it would be considered inappropriate to spy on such conversations even though it's technically and legally possible to do so? Our judgments as to what is considered socially acceptable behaviour aren't strictly ruled by what is technically or legally possible, nor should they be.
    - satvikpendem 1y ago
      No, I don't find it inappropriate, nor would I call it spying at all. I wrote in another comment that I consider social media searching more like yelling in a public square and thinking that anyone who overhears your shouting is "spying" on you. That is essentially exactly what one is doing when they post publicly on social media.
      - shawnz 1y ago
        And if social media users in general broadly disagree with you about that (which seems to be the case, given the confusion), who's to say who is right about this totally subjective standard by which we judge appropriateness? Isn't it society at large which gets to decide societal principles?
        satvikpendem 1y ago
        Sure, but I don't believe they do disagree though, as I stated in my initial comment that it's generally only those on HN who disagree, a vocal minority. The article shows how regular people don't care, they find it even better service than normal to be catered to. So if that's the case, by your logic, we should agree that it is appropriate, right?
        shawnz 1y ago
        You might be right that this isn't a particularly good example, but I'm not convinced that finding this to be inappropriate is an opinion that's just limited to technologists. I would be interested to see the reader comments on an article like this (but it seems they don't have those on sfgate).
asdf6969 1y ago
[flagged]
- satvikpendem 1y ago
  People post videos of others in public all the time, do you think they ask every single person on YouTube to sign a consent waiver to be filmed? There's no "gotcha" as you're implying, those are all things people do already without creepiness.
  - asdf6969 1y ago
    This is ok to you? You’re a creep. Maybe you’re the guy in this article https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-jarry-park-voyeurism-1.7578264 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-jarry-park-...
    - satvikpendem 1y ago
      Voyeurism is an actual crime compared to what restaurants in this thread are doing. Don't create a false equivalence where there is none.
      - asdf6969 1y ago
        What if the restaurant followed you with a drone and took pictures of everything you ate in public for a month?
        satvikpendem 1y ago
        Is that not also voyeurism? There is a difference between the real world and online, to most normal people, hence my initial comment saying generally only HNers seem to equate the two.
        asdf6969 1y ago
        [flagged]