8 ms·

Recording public spaces should be illegal. Public street? Public sidewalk? Not your turf, no cameras, no recording.

jedberg 8mo ago
I'm not sure you've thought this through. That would mean you can't record law enforcement or any other abuse of power. The issue here isn't the recording, it's the packaging it up for sale that's the issue.
- nullc 8mo ago
  I've given a bit of thought on this, and I think the best path might be civil liability for the privacy loss-- defined broadly. Private security camera that never goes anywhere? You're fine. Start posting that same footage online where it results in people being massively tracked: big liability. I think otherwise it's too difficult to define the exact boundary between harmful and harmless use-- instead it's better to say that if your use harms someone you'll regret it.
toephu2 8mo ago
So google maps streetview should be illegal?
Dylan16807 8mo ago
I think that goes too far, but limiting public space recordings to a camera you're operating in person would be a good starting point.
- alex43578 8mo ago
  Good idea: keep the confrontational 1st amendment auditors, lose the benefits of security cameras. /s
  - Dylan16807 8mo ago
    No idea who you mean by the first group. Security cameras are fine for filming your own property.
    - alex43578 8mo ago
      1st amendment auditors = confrontational streamers who deliberately take public filming to an extreme. Any cameras are fine for recording any public property. That’s the whole idea of being in public: others can see you, you can see them, and you aren’t (shouldn’t) be doing something you wouldn’t mind being recorded. You have no expectation of privacy standing on a sidewalk.
      - Dylan16807 8mo ago
        I'm fine that others can see me. But we don't have to extend that to unlimited recording. We don't have to extend that to robots. 50 years ago you didn't have privacy walking around outside but you weren't subject to constant surveillance and tracking. The current state isn't some inevitable fact of life. It's fixable without any draconian action.
        alex43578 8mo ago
        What needs to be fixed about that for a regular person, realistically? What harm is a regular person suffering from being recorded by the security camera at Home Depot, their neighbor’s Ring doorbell, or even the TSA face recognition at the airport? Ignoring the fact that there’s alternate-construction approaches to tracking all that (credit cards, your nosey neighbor just looking out a window, phone tracking, passenger manifests, etc), there’s just no realistic harm you incur by being tracked in those ways. If you’ve repeatedly shoplifted at the Home Depot or stole your neighbor’s Amazon package, I get it, but otherwise, what are you doing in the middle of a street that can’t be recorded forever?
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

I'm not sure you've thought this through. That would mean you can't record law enforcement or any other abuse of power. The issue here isn't the recording, it's the packaging it up for sale that's the issue.

nullc 8mo ago
I've given a bit of thought on this, and I think the best path might be civil liability for the privacy loss-- defined broadly. Private security camera that never goes anywhere? You're fine. Start posting that same footage online where it results in people being massively tracked: big liability. I think otherwise it's too difficult to define the exact boundary between harmful and harmless use-- instead it's better to say that if your use harms someone you'll regret it.

toephu2 8mo ago

So google maps streetview should be illegal?

Dylan16807 8mo ago

I think that goes too far, but limiting public space recordings to a camera you're operating in person would be a good starting point.

alex43578 8mo ago
Good idea: keep the confrontational 1st amendment auditors, lose the benefits of security cameras. /s
- Dylan16807 8mo ago
  No idea who you mean by the first group. Security cameras are fine for filming your own property.
  - alex43578 8mo ago
    1st amendment auditors = confrontational streamers who deliberately take public filming to an extreme. Any cameras are fine for recording any public property. That’s the whole idea of being in public: others can see you, you can see them, and you aren’t (shouldn’t) be doing something you wouldn’t mind being recorded. You have no expectation of privacy standing on a sidewalk.
    - Dylan16807 8mo ago
      I'm fine that others can see me. But we don't have to extend that to unlimited recording. We don't have to extend that to robots. 50 years ago you didn't have privacy walking around outside but you weren't subject to constant surveillance and tracking. The current state isn't some inevitable fact of life. It's fixable without any draconian action.
      - alex43578 8mo ago
        What needs to be fixed about that for a regular person, realistically? What harm is a regular person suffering from being recorded by the security camera at Home Depot, their neighbor’s Ring doorbell, or even the TSA face recognition at the airport? Ignoring the fact that there’s alternate-construction approaches to tracking all that (credit cards, your nosey neighbor just looking out a window, phone tracking, passenger manifests, etc), there’s just no realistic harm you incur by being tracked in those ways. If you’ve repeatedly shoplifted at the Home Depot or stole your neighbor’s Amazon package, I get it, but otherwise, what are you doing in the middle of a street that can’t be recorded forever?

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]