3 ms·

fundementally we need to rethink what rights there are in public. We could start with "make photography totally illegal in public, or rewrite what we mean 'expe

fundementally we need to rethink what rights there are in public. We could start with "make photography totally illegal in public, or rewrite what we mean 'expectation of privacy' or what rules we have because the technology demands this.

pesus 9d ago
Agreed. I hate the fact that going in public requires accepting that you can be filmed by anyone and broadcast to the world without your consent, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. I'd also love to move past the inevitable "you have no expectation of privacy whatsoever in public!" comments that get regurgitated every time this topic comes up. Yes, that's the issue in the first place.
iamnothere 9d ago
Perhaps we could make it illegal to record an area beyond a certain scale, along with mandating that multiple systems recording distinct properties should not be networked together and must not share data with other systems. The exact language would need to be worked out to eliminate most loopholes while allowing reasonable applications. It’s possible to allow small systems like home/business security cameras while forbidding mass surveillance. The law just needs to include clear statements of intent, and sufficient penalties, so future judges can apply it forcefully against people who try to find clever workarounds.
iAMkenough 9d ago
ICE and other “law” enforcement would be totally on board with the “it’s illegal to take photos outside of your own home” level of fascism, as they continue to take pictures of you in public for “national security.”
internet101010 9d ago
The expectation line should be drawn at whether or not your existence in public results in the monetary gain of the entity that captures/uses the data.
dghlsakjg 9d ago
The problem in the US is that the "photography in public" right, and expectation of privacy rules are deeply entwined with the first amendment. You have to deal with the practicality of what is most likely the most universally popular amendment, and also deal with the fallout of handing a weapon to those that want to squelch free speech and free press.

pesus 9d ago

Agreed. I hate the fact that going in public requires accepting that you can be filmed by anyone and broadcast to the world without your consent, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. I'd also love to move past the inevitable "you have no expectation of privacy whatsoever in public!" comments that get regurgitated every time this topic comes up. Yes, that's the issue in the first place.

iamnothere 9d ago

Perhaps we could make it illegal to record an area beyond a certain scale, along with mandating that multiple systems recording distinct properties should not be networked together and must not share data with other systems. The exact language would need to be worked out to eliminate most loopholes while allowing reasonable applications. It’s possible to allow small systems like home/business security cameras while forbidding mass surveillance. The law just needs to include clear statements of intent, and sufficient penalties, so future judges can apply it forcefully against people who try to find clever workarounds.

iAMkenough 9d ago

ICE and other “law” enforcement would be totally on board with the “it’s illegal to take photos outside of your own home” level of fascism, as they continue to take pictures of you in public for “national security.”

internet101010 9d ago

The expectation line should be drawn at whether or not your existence in public results in the monetary gain of the entity that captures/uses the data.

dghlsakjg 9d ago

The problem in the US is that the "photography in public" right, and expectation of privacy rules are deeply entwined with the first amendment. You have to deal with the practicality of what is most likely the most universally popular amendment, and also deal with the fallout of handing a weapon to those that want to squelch free speech and free press.