4 ms·

> that's still asking people to give up their most sensitive freedom, the right to move without being tracked, for speculative gains. It might come as a shock,

> that's still asking people to give up their most sensitive freedom, the right to move without being tracked, for speculative gains. It might come as a shock, but there's nothing guaranteeing private movement in public in the US. It is totally legal for people to whip out their phone and start filming you in public. People can set up cameras on their property and film the road outside their house. In fact, many of the municipalities that have "ditched" still have loads of flock cameras that they cant remove because they're on private property owned by the property owners.

bob8490 6mo ago
There is this, which isn't enough but makes it clear the door is not shut on this argument. https://law.stanford.edu/2018/06/22/supreme-court-defends-privacy-in-cell-phone-location-data-collection/ https://law.stanford.edu/2018/06/22/supreme-court-defends-pr... > The Court decided that a person has a “legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements.” and > "A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere." In my view, the individual right to document anything one may observe in public is significantly different from tax dollars being spent to record everything that's visible in public, analyze it with AI, and then cross-reference it across an extended period to track the movements of law abiding Americans. It's unreasonable to think you won't appear in someone's camera lens at any given moment while out in public. It's not at all unreasonable to assume your patterns of life won't be tagged and cataloged for weeks on end, for whatever reason, by a private or public entity. You're right there's not enough precedent here yet, but we shouldn't let the current precedent of there being almost no regulation on this stuff remain.
text0404 6mo ago
Doubt that anyone is concerned with a random person catching a portion of your face while they're taking a picture in public. Instead, it's opposition to being tracked over time by a centralized entity like a private company or government agencies.

bob8490 6mo ago

There is this, which isn't enough but makes it clear the door is not shut on this argument. https://law.stanford.edu/2018/06/22/supreme-court-defends-privacy-in-cell-phone-location-data-collection/ https://law.stanford.edu/2018/06/22/supreme-court-defends-pr... > The Court decided that a person has a “legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements.” and > "A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere." In my view, the individual right to document anything one may observe in public is significantly different from tax dollars being spent to record everything that's visible in public, analyze it with AI, and then cross-reference it across an extended period to track the movements of law abiding Americans. It's unreasonable to think you won't appear in someone's camera lens at any given moment while out in public. It's not at all unreasonable to assume your patterns of life won't be tagged and cataloged for weeks on end, for whatever reason, by a private or public entity. You're right there's not enough precedent here yet, but we shouldn't let the current precedent of there being almost no regulation on this stuff remain.

text0404 6mo ago

Doubt that anyone is concerned with a random person catching a portion of your face while they're taking a picture in public. Instead, it's opposition to being tracked over time by a centralized entity like a private company or government agencies.