4 ms·

A space can be considered private by the occupant, but the addition of an IP camera makes it not private. They are not contradictory statements.

by My_Name 3mo ago

throw310822 3mo ago
This is both completely wrong from a concrete standpoint (if I put an ip camera in your home broadcasting without your knowledge, your home doesn't become magically "a public space"- you still have a full right to privacy); and completely trivial from a literal standpoint (if everyone can see you then you are in public, hey no shit Sherlock). Which makes me think that people proposing such view are not, in fact, trying to communicate its (obviously wrong or entirely trivial, depending on the interpretation) content; they're trying to say "hey look at me, how tech savvy I am, I'm so in it that for me an open port is, like, a window open on the village square yeah".
- My_Name 3mo ago
  OK, I won't bother trying to talk further with someone who thinks in false dichotomies and cannot understand that two things can be true at the same time. When I'm in my home, I can consider that private and have a right to privacy, and at the same time there can be a camera in there broadcasting to a million people so in no stretch of the word do I have privacy, and my home is not private, and those two truths are not dependent on whether the camera being there, or people watching the feed, is right or wrong.
  - throw310822 3mo ago
    > When I'm in my home, I can consider that private and have a right to privacy Agreed > at the same time there can be a camera in there broadcasting to a million people so in no stretch of the word do I have privacy and my home is not private Agreed. And this is the situation we're discussing now: people who are in a private space, whose privacy is violated by an ip camera that makes their private things accessible to the public. This is the description of the website this entire thread is about. What did you add to the conversation?
    - My_Name 3mo ago
      What I am doing is correcting you on your asserting that my statement was "completely wrong from a concrete standpoint" You just said : "> When I'm in my home, I can consider that private and have a right to privacy Agreed > at the same time there can be a camera in there broadcasting to a million people so in no stretch of the word do I have privacy and my home is not private Agreed." So, to paraphrase, "A space can be considered private by the occupant, but the addition of an IP camera makes it not private.", right? Those are not contradictory statements.

A space can be considered private by the occupant, but the addition of an IP camera makes it not private. They are not contradictory statements.

by My_Name 3mo ago

A space can be considered private by the occupant, but the addition of an IP camera makes it not private. They are not contradictory statements.

throw310822 3mo ago

This is both completely wrong from a concrete standpoint (if I put an ip camera in your home broadcasting without your knowledge, your home doesn't become magically "a public space"- you still have a full right to privacy); and completely trivial from a literal standpoint (if everyone can see you then you are in public, hey no shit Sherlock). Which makes me think that people proposing such view are not, in fact, trying to communicate its (obviously wrong or entirely trivial, depending on the interpretation) content; they're trying to say "hey look at me, how tech savvy I am, I'm so in it that for me an open port is, like, a window open on the village square yeah".

My_Name 3mo ago
OK, I won't bother trying to talk further with someone who thinks in false dichotomies and cannot understand that two things can be true at the same time. When I'm in my home, I can consider that private and have a right to privacy, and at the same time there can be a camera in there broadcasting to a million people so in no stretch of the word do I have privacy, and my home is not private, and those two truths are not dependent on whether the camera being there, or people watching the feed, is right or wrong.
- throw310822 3mo ago
  > When I'm in my home, I can consider that private and have a right to privacy Agreed > at the same time there can be a camera in there broadcasting to a million people so in no stretch of the word do I have privacy and my home is not private Agreed. And this is the situation we're discussing now: people who are in a private space, whose privacy is violated by an ip camera that makes their private things accessible to the public. This is the description of the website this entire thread is about. What did you add to the conversation?
  - My_Name 3mo ago
    What I am doing is correcting you on your asserting that my statement was "completely wrong from a concrete standpoint" You just said : "> When I'm in my home, I can consider that private and have a right to privacy Agreed > at the same time there can be a camera in there broadcasting to a million people so in no stretch of the word do I have privacy and my home is not private Agreed." So, to paraphrase, "A space can be considered private by the occupant, but the addition of an IP camera makes it not private.", right? Those are not contradictory statements.