5 ms·

> Taking a photograph of a car with its license plate is legal. As is selling a photo you've taken, whether it has a license plate or not. > Therefore taking m

> Taking a photograph of a car with its license plate is legal. As is selling a photo you've taken, whether it has a license plate or not. > Therefore taking millions of photos in public of cars, and turning their license plate numbers into a database is legal, as is selling that information. It's all data gained in public. One absolutely does not follow the other; there are all sorts of things that are legal only if done for certain purposes, only below a certain scale, etc. The idea that we must permit both or neither is a false dichotomy.

wmeredith 11mo ago
E.g. I have the personal liberty to host card game for money at my house. But if I require a house take, now I'm running a gambling business.
- jMyles 11mo ago
  That's not a difference in scope; it's a difference in kind. And even the latter is fraught with hazards to liberty.
  - pseudalopex 11mo ago
    Observing and recording is a difference in kind. Recording and processing is a difference in kind. Processing and selling is a difference in kind. And quantity has a quality all its own.
    - jMyles 11mo ago
      > Observing and recording is a difference in kind. Not if you believe in a right of general-purpose computing. Your brain records everything you observe. If you can use a computer for any purpose you choose, then you can use it to record what you can see and hear.
      - pseudalopex 11mo ago
        Human memory is not recording in common or legal language. And laws now reflect the difference. Copyright for example.
        jMyles 11mo ago
        ...I mean, sure, I'll argue that copyright laws are illegitimate on this basis. And it's beyond obvious at this point that the internet doesn't abide by this "law".
        pseudalopex 11mo ago
        Not wanting laws to reflect a difference does not mean a difference does not exist. > And it's beyond obvious at this point that the internet doesn't abide by this "law". What law? Copyright? Why the punctuation? And what did you intend this to imply?
        jMyles 11mo ago
        > Not wanting laws to reflect a difference does not mean a difference does not exist. The point is: the difference is a legal fiction which necessarily prohibits general-purpose computing. If I can capture photons with my eyes, but then I try to do it with a machine, and you say, "hey, you can't use a machine for that!" then you are telling me that I can't engage in general purpose computing. > What law? Copyright? Why the punctuation? And what did you intend this to imply? Yes, I don't think copyright laws are a legitimate role for state power in the information age. And if the argument is, "well, look copyright laws require prohibitions on collecting or copying data or any other general purpose computing process", then that only makes the case stronger, not weaker. If a law requires the state to intrude into your personal, intimate computing process - whether the biological process in your brain or an electronic one in your computer - then that's a very strong indication that the law is not a legitimate intervention on behalf of the rights of others.
        11mo ago
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > That's not a difference in scope; it's a difference in kind At a certain point, difference in scale becomes difference in kind. This is fundamental to the universe to the point of thermodynamics. (To the example, how do you think it would go if you regularly hosted hundres of card games in respect of which you didn't take a cut?)
crazygringo 11mo ago
But that's literally the question I'm asking. Where do you draw the line in a way that stops what we consider to be abuses, but doesn't stop what we think of as legitimate uses by journalists, academics, etc.? E.g. city employees who need to better understand traffic patterns originating from one neighborhood, to plan better public transit. Journalists who want to expose the congestion caused by Amazon delivery trucks. And so forth. Is it database size? Commercial use? Whether license plates are hashed before storing? Hashed before selling the data to a third party? What about law enforcement with a warrant? Etc.
- Perseids 11mo ago
  > But that's literally the question I'm asking. Where do you draw the line in a way that stops what we consider to be abuses, but doesn't stop what we think of as legitimate uses by journalists, academics, etc.? I think the wrong assumption you're making, is that there is supposed to be a simple answer, like something you can describe with a thousand words. But with messy reality this basically never the case: Where do you draw the line of what is considered a taxable business? What are the limits of free speech? What procedures should be paid by health insurance? It is important to accept this messiness and the complexity it brings instead of giving up and declaring the problem unsolvable. If you have ever asked yourself, why the GDPR is so difficult and so multifaceted in its implications, the messiness you are pointing out is the reason. And of course, the answer to your question is: Look at the GDPR and European legislation as a precedent to where you draw the line for each instance and situation. It's not perfect of course, but given the problem, it can't be.
  - crazygringo 11mo ago
    Generally, you do want the general principle of something like this to be explainable in a few sentences, yes. Even if that results in a bunch of more detailed regulations, we can then understand the principles behind those regulations, even if they decide a bunch of edge cases with precise lines that seem arbitrary. Things like the limits of free speech can be explained in a few sentences at a high level. So yes, I'm asking for what the equivalent might be here. The idea that "it's so impossibly complicated that the general approach can't even be summarized" is not helpful. Even when regulations are complicated, they start from a few basic principles that can be clearly enumerated.
garyfirestorm 11mo ago
I see so I can follow you around and continuously 24x7 video tape and document your actions as long as it’s in public this should be fine.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  This is literally what private detectives do when they tail someone. So yes, this is legal as long as it's not harassing or there's a restraining order or something. Did you think it was not?
  - rootusrootus 11mo ago
    > Did you think it was not? Not OP, but yes, I think it is not. At least, not legal in the same expansive way that you are implying. AFAIK private detective work is very much regulated, most likely because it is otherwise known as stalking.
    - chii 11mo ago
      The purpose and intention matters a lot. A stalker has very different intentions to a private detective.
      - jacquesm 11mo ago
        A stalker could hire a private detective as a quick and easy hack if intentions did not matter. Private detectives have an obligation to ensure that the intentions of their clients are legal if they want to continue to be private detectives.
    - red-iron-pine 11mo ago
      stalking implies harassment, threats, and real or perceived potential for danger it is illegal because it means the stalker will attack / rape / otherwise damage or harass the victim. however watching or tracking someone in public is plenty legal, and actual PIs have ethical and legal obligation to weed out stalkers and dubious behavior

wmeredith 11mo ago

E.g. I have the personal liberty to host card game for money at my house. But if I require a house take, now I'm running a gambling business.

jMyles 11mo ago
That's not a difference in scope; it's a difference in kind. And even the latter is fraught with hazards to liberty.
- pseudalopex 11mo ago
  Observing and recording is a difference in kind. Recording and processing is a difference in kind. Processing and selling is a difference in kind. And quantity has a quality all its own.
  - jMyles 11mo ago
    > Observing and recording is a difference in kind. Not if you believe in a right of general-purpose computing. Your brain records everything you observe. If you can use a computer for any purpose you choose, then you can use it to record what you can see and hear.
    - pseudalopex 11mo ago
      Human memory is not recording in common or legal language. And laws now reflect the difference. Copyright for example.
      - jMyles 11mo ago
        ...I mean, sure, I'll argue that copyright laws are illegitimate on this basis. And it's beyond obvious at this point that the internet doesn't abide by this "law".
        pseudalopex 11mo ago
        Not wanting laws to reflect a difference does not mean a difference does not exist. > And it's beyond obvious at this point that the internet doesn't abide by this "law". What law? Copyright? Why the punctuation? And what did you intend this to imply?
        jMyles 11mo ago
        > Not wanting laws to reflect a difference does not mean a difference does not exist. The point is: the difference is a legal fiction which necessarily prohibits general-purpose computing. If I can capture photons with my eyes, but then I try to do it with a machine, and you say, "hey, you can't use a machine for that!" then you are telling me that I can't engage in general purpose computing. > What law? Copyright? Why the punctuation? And what did you intend this to imply? Yes, I don't think copyright laws are a legitimate role for state power in the information age. And if the argument is, "well, look copyright laws require prohibitions on collecting or copying data or any other general purpose computing process", then that only makes the case stronger, not weaker. If a law requires the state to intrude into your personal, intimate computing process - whether the biological process in your brain or an electronic one in your computer - then that's a very strong indication that the law is not a legitimate intervention on behalf of the rights of others.
        11mo ago
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  > That's not a difference in scope; it's a difference in kind At a certain point, difference in scale becomes difference in kind. This is fundamental to the universe to the point of thermodynamics. (To the example, how do you think it would go if you regularly hosted hundres of card games in respect of which you didn't take a cut?)

crazygringo 11mo ago

But that's literally the question I'm asking. Where do you draw the line in a way that stops what we consider to be abuses, but doesn't stop what we think of as legitimate uses by journalists, academics, etc.? E.g. city employees who need to better understand traffic patterns originating from one neighborhood, to plan better public transit. Journalists who want to expose the congestion caused by Amazon delivery trucks. And so forth. Is it database size? Commercial use? Whether license plates are hashed before storing? Hashed before selling the data to a third party? What about law enforcement with a warrant? Etc.

Perseids 11mo ago
> But that's literally the question I'm asking. Where do you draw the line in a way that stops what we consider to be abuses, but doesn't stop what we think of as legitimate uses by journalists, academics, etc.? I think the wrong assumption you're making, is that there is supposed to be a simple answer, like something you can describe with a thousand words. But with messy reality this basically never the case: Where do you draw the line of what is considered a taxable business? What are the limits of free speech? What procedures should be paid by health insurance? It is important to accept this messiness and the complexity it brings instead of giving up and declaring the problem unsolvable. If you have ever asked yourself, why the GDPR is so difficult and so multifaceted in its implications, the messiness you are pointing out is the reason. And of course, the answer to your question is: Look at the GDPR and European legislation as a precedent to where you draw the line for each instance and situation. It's not perfect of course, but given the problem, it can't be.
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  Generally, you do want the general principle of something like this to be explainable in a few sentences, yes. Even if that results in a bunch of more detailed regulations, we can then understand the principles behind those regulations, even if they decide a bunch of edge cases with precise lines that seem arbitrary. Things like the limits of free speech can be explained in a few sentences at a high level. So yes, I'm asking for what the equivalent might be here. The idea that "it's so impossibly complicated that the general approach can't even be summarized" is not helpful. Even when regulations are complicated, they start from a few basic principles that can be clearly enumerated.

garyfirestorm 11mo ago

I see so I can follow you around and continuously 24x7 video tape and document your actions as long as it’s in public this should be fine.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
crazygringo 11mo ago
This is literally what private detectives do when they tail someone. So yes, this is legal as long as it's not harassing or there's a restraining order or something. Did you think it was not?
- rootusrootus 11mo ago
  > Did you think it was not? Not OP, but yes, I think it is not. At least, not legal in the same expansive way that you are implying. AFAIK private detective work is very much regulated, most likely because it is otherwise known as stalking.
  - chii 11mo ago
    The purpose and intention matters a lot. A stalker has very different intentions to a private detective.
    - jacquesm 11mo ago
      A stalker could hire a private detective as a quick and easy hack if intentions did not matter. Private detectives have an obligation to ensure that the intentions of their clients are legal if they want to continue to be private detectives.
  - red-iron-pine 11mo ago
    stalking implies harassment, threats, and real or perceived potential for danger it is illegal because it means the stalker will attack / rape / otherwise damage or harass the victim. however watching or tracking someone in public is plenty legal, and actual PIs have ethical and legal obligation to weed out stalkers and dubious behavior