4 ms·

I agree with your historical analysis, and I'm also uncomfortable with the total surveillance, but I'm not sure I buy there exist effective legal solutions. Th

I agree with your historical analysis, and I'm also uncomfortable with the total surveillance, but I'm not sure I buy there exist effective legal solutions. The truth is that everyone carries a camera, that all vehicles have cameras and will to a greater and greater degree be using those cameras all the time. I don't know what kind of limits we can put on the lack of privacy there that aren't incredibly intrusive attempts to control everyone's behavior or stop all technology.

wongarsu 1y ago
Europe provides plenty of examples of how this can work. The implementation varies from country to country, but the common thread is that you need a lot of subtlety. Rules like "it's fine to photograph a street full of people, but if you focus on a single person you need their consent" and "you can photograph a busy street for artistic reasons, but the same photograph is illegal if the intent is collecting data about the people or vehicles in the shot, unless it's for research or education"
- aetherson 1y ago
  Those strike me as problematic. It strikes me as a big problem if I've got to navigate some fuzzy line about how much I am perceived to focus on someone every time I take a photo in public. Who decides too much focus is too much? How do they decide? How do I defend my artistic intent for every photo in public? I understand how if you wave away all concepts of fallibility or enforceability, you can say to people, "It's cool that all this data exists, just don't be creepy," but you can't wave those concepts away.
  - Sammi 1y ago
    Ultimately it gets decided the same way all matters of law are ultimately decided: a judge decides. How this is strange to you is strange to me.
    - aetherson 1y ago
      When you make bad law that involves trying to apply a fuzzy rule to a fuzzy situation, judges make bad calls. And you also make it possible for people to be very harassed by bringing cases to court where it's not possible to easily dismiss them (because the rule is fuzzy and there isn't a clear standard to dismiss) so even if the judge makes a good call, you've punished good behavior.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        Almost all of our laws fall into this categorizations. The idea that laws are clear-cut is largely a programmers fantasy. Related: there's a lot of people who think that if you don't technically break the law then you're off the hook. Uh, no, not how law works. The letter of the law doesn't matter, the spirit does. Being an asshole but not technically breaking the law is still illegal. Yes, that's a lot different than code, isnt it? But it has to be.
        aetherson 1y ago
        You're a combination of smug and wrong that I don't think is working for you.
        const_cast 1y ago
        Are you going to expand on me being wrong or is "nuh uh!!" all you can offer? The reason I'm smug is that technical people think they're hyper intelligent and cracked the code. Ha! Those silly law makers! Don't they know I perfectly followed the laws algorithm and hit an edge case? Now they HAVE to let me off the hook! No they don't. Why would they have to do that? Laws aren't algorithms, they're natural language intended to curb bad behavior. If your behavior is bad, and a judge or jury thinks it's bad, you're getting curbed. The inverse of that is you can actually break the law and get away with it, if the behavior isn't bad. Maybe it's justified, maybe you're a struggling single mother or something... the jury can just say "nahhh" and you go home.
gs17 1y ago
> The truth is that everyone carries a camera But that "everyone" isn't a single entity recording everywhere in public with the intent of providing tracking information of everyone else. If I'm in the background of someone's selfie and posts it online, it could be used to get my location at a specific time, sure, but their intent wasn't to do so and the scope of their recording is dramatically more limited than Flock.
- tremon 1y ago
  To add to this: you being in the background of anyone's selfie is not a problem of itself. It is the aggregation of everyone's selfies that is a surveillance hazard, the risk associated with each individual picture is minimal.

wongarsu 1y ago

Europe provides plenty of examples of how this can work. The implementation varies from country to country, but the common thread is that you need a lot of subtlety. Rules like "it's fine to photograph a street full of people, but if you focus on a single person you need their consent" and "you can photograph a busy street for artistic reasons, but the same photograph is illegal if the intent is collecting data about the people or vehicles in the shot, unless it's for research or education"

aetherson 1y ago
Those strike me as problematic. It strikes me as a big problem if I've got to navigate some fuzzy line about how much I am perceived to focus on someone every time I take a photo in public. Who decides too much focus is too much? How do they decide? How do I defend my artistic intent for every photo in public? I understand how if you wave away all concepts of fallibility or enforceability, you can say to people, "It's cool that all this data exists, just don't be creepy," but you can't wave those concepts away.
- Sammi 1y ago
  Ultimately it gets decided the same way all matters of law are ultimately decided: a judge decides. How this is strange to you is strange to me.
  - aetherson 1y ago
    When you make bad law that involves trying to apply a fuzzy rule to a fuzzy situation, judges make bad calls. And you also make it possible for people to be very harassed by bringing cases to court where it's not possible to easily dismiss them (because the rule is fuzzy and there isn't a clear standard to dismiss) so even if the judge makes a good call, you've punished good behavior.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      Almost all of our laws fall into this categorizations. The idea that laws are clear-cut is largely a programmers fantasy. Related: there's a lot of people who think that if you don't technically break the law then you're off the hook. Uh, no, not how law works. The letter of the law doesn't matter, the spirit does. Being an asshole but not technically breaking the law is still illegal. Yes, that's a lot different than code, isnt it? But it has to be.
      - aetherson 1y ago
        You're a combination of smug and wrong that I don't think is working for you.
        const_cast 1y ago
        Are you going to expand on me being wrong or is "nuh uh!!" all you can offer? The reason I'm smug is that technical people think they're hyper intelligent and cracked the code. Ha! Those silly law makers! Don't they know I perfectly followed the laws algorithm and hit an edge case? Now they HAVE to let me off the hook! No they don't. Why would they have to do that? Laws aren't algorithms, they're natural language intended to curb bad behavior. If your behavior is bad, and a judge or jury thinks it's bad, you're getting curbed. The inverse of that is you can actually break the law and get away with it, if the behavior isn't bad. Maybe it's justified, maybe you're a struggling single mother or something... the jury can just say "nahhh" and you go home.

gs17 1y ago

> The truth is that everyone carries a camera But that "everyone" isn't a single entity recording everywhere in public with the intent of providing tracking information of everyone else. If I'm in the background of someone's selfie and posts it online, it could be used to get my location at a specific time, sure, but their intent wasn't to do so and the scope of their recording is dramatically more limited than Flock.

tremon 1y ago
To add to this: you being in the background of anyone's selfie is not a problem of itself. It is the aggregation of everyone's selfies that is a surveillance hazard, the risk associated with each individual picture is minimal.