3 ms·
They shouldn't be out in public. The courts have routinely ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in public. This is why CCTV recordings are allowed.
by fleitz 14y ago
They shouldn't be out in public.
The courts have routinely ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in public. This is why CCTV recordings are allowed.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- glimcat 14y agoYou know, I'm all for that - up until we invent Youtube and it turns up in search results for the person's name more or less forever.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- scarmig 14y agoI'm not speaking about the courts: I'm talking about what we want as a society. Do we want to allow skeevy men to follow around 12 year olds in malls with a video camera? Do we want celebrities to have virtually no expectation of privacy when they go to the grocery store? Do we want anti-abortion protestors recording people walking in public spaces, posting their pictures online, and linking them to their names? Do we want anti-Walmart organizers to be able to take pictures of people leaving Walmart and harassing them in a guilt-shaming campaign? It's obviously a Tough Issue. But I see no reason I should be expected to give up all my expectations of privacy. Just because it's physically possible to take pictures doesn't mean you should be able to take pictures, just like being able to do SQLI on a public facing website doesn't entitle you to do SQLI on a public facing website.
- brianchu 14y agoThe law already clearly addresses the issue of when invading privacy is allowed. See the concepts of public figure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure) and reasonable expectation of privacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy).
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]