4 ms·

I don't want to be recorded. At All!! No video, no audio, no photographs. NOTHING!! Take your Glass somewhere else. I am off-limits.

by sismoc 13y ago

gnaritas 13y ago
What makes you think you have a right to tell someone else what they can record in a public place? You cannot have an expectation of privacy in public.
- bigiain 13y ago
  (This is the beginning of a much longer comment I wrote in another thread a few days back - see the full version here if you're interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6043640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6043640 ) "You have no expectation of privacy when in public." I'm seeing this objection a lot lately, and perhaps I'm showing my age here, but I've certainly got an "expectation of being largely individually anonymous when in public". While there's nothing to stop people looking for me and possibly finding me in public - I _don't_ expect people(/corporations/tlagencies) to be recording everybody in public spaces and archiving them permanently in ways that allow all archived recordings of me to eventually be crossreferenced and de-anonymised.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > Personally, I'm of the opinion that "public space personally identifiable data collection" should be regulated similarly to HIPPA. I don't think that's possible; I don't think regulation can work here. Things like HIPPA and PCI regulate a very small number of providers. Regulating the general public at large from getting a picture of you in public on their Google Glass type device just isn't really technically or socially feasible and that will be where the majority of this type of surveillance happens. Beyond that, the next generation doesn't have the privacy expectations that you do; they see you as an old man clinging to old ways. > I _don't_ expect people(/corporations/tlagencies) to be recording everybody in public spaces and archiving them permanently in ways that allow all archived recordings of me to eventually be crossreferenced and de-anonymised. Then adjust your expectations, because that is the future and it won't and likely can't be stopped. Have a look at the movie A Scanner Darkly to see a more feasible solution, anonymous masks worn by those who don't want to be seen.
    - bigiain 13y ago
      You're probably right… To clarify though… I don't expect to "stop" Larry or Serge (or anyone else) from walking through Delores Park with their Glass on while I'm there (at the same time, I fully expect the doorman at Zeitgeist to tell em "Sorry, you can't come in here with those"). An individual recording stuff they're seeing anyway is pretty much "their right" - what they then choose to do with that recording though, is just as much their responsibility. For example, if you record someone walking out of Good Vibrations or Crazy Horse, and you choose to upload that to YouTube to make fun of them, and that person then loses their job over it (perhaps at the church-owned school they work at?) - I'd like to see you held to account for that action (and held financially responsible for breaching someone else's privacy). This is actually codified into my local (NSW, Australian) Law in part. It's legal to record (audio and/or video) any interaction you have with a police officer. It's _not_ legal to "publish" that recording without the officers consent. Practically, it's been determined that you can't introduce a recording of your interaction with police as evidence in court (at least without the recorded police's agreement), but you _can_ tell the judge you've got a recording that proves a police officer is lying in his testimony, and the judge can request to see the recording. This has become very well known amongst profiled and targeted groups (for me, many motorcycle riders indiscriminately targeted as "outlaw motorcycle gang members" routinely record all police interactions and several high-profile lawyers recommend it). Where I think this become important - is when many such recordings are collected together. Larry and his Glass, you and your Glass - they have small scale privacy implications, and barring those users doing something obviously stupid with them (which is no different from cellphone camera "etiquette" - if you go hanging outside abortion clinics, mental health clinics, drug rehabilitation centers, or schools with your camera/phone/Glass - and distribute the pictures you capture, you should expect consequences). I think though that Google (or anybody else) should consider the collection of many many user's Glass images/video/audio to be a potential-nightmare privacy problem _for them_. Before they start archiving all that, I think someone should be asking the same sort of questions you'd ask the junior developer who says "I'm just logging all the form data, so we can use it for debugging later" - You'd be asking "Hang on, _all_ the form data? The personally identifying information? The credit card number/expiry/ccv? The social security number? The medical history? And you're just writing that all out in cleartext to the public webserver logfles? Ummm, nope. I've just revoked your commit credentials and powered down the webserver - you might want to gather your things, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out…" I don't think it "shouldn't be allowed", but I do think people implementing wholesale gathering of "public space personally identifiable data" should be held to high standards of responsibility for having that collection - "High" as in "if we screw up and this data get misused/exposed/stolen, that'll be to a very high level of likelyhood a CEO/CTO/company-destroying event" standards. You don't "just collect all the health information you can", you don't "just collect all the credit card information you can", _I'd_ like public-space surveillance to be the same. I'd like mall operators to say "Of course we don't archive video surveillance - we've got procedures and policies in place to delete all recordings over 1 week old unless we get a written police request for specific cameras/times/persons-of-interest, and we have a monthly task that checks and ensures that policy is adhered to."
bigiain 13y ago
I also don't want to be recorded by convenience store or shopping mall cctv, or by repo man ANPR, or by red light / speeding cameras. We've lost that argument though. What I would like to see, is for there to be appropriate responsibility assumed by the people taking advantage of the privilege of recording everything. I eagerly await the first few court cases where someone drunkenly records and uploads to youtube something that they _really_ shouldn't have, and a judge and jury decides it's entirely appropriate to hold Glass-wearers to account for what they choose to record and publish.
- izendejas 13y ago
  I'm genuinely curious: why don't you want to be recorded at malls et al? What's the difference between such surveillance and a security guard wondering around looking for suspicious activity and/or protecting shoppers/businesses? Surely, it can be abused, but it can also help protect "suspicious" individuals from being profiled/targeted maliciously by such security guard, for example. What if you were hit an intersection and said cameras helped to identify the individual who hit you and then ran, would that change your mind? I don't think surveillance is the problem as much as who does it and the laws they implement.
  - bigiain 13y ago
    The difference is "recording". Or, more specifically, recording and never deleting the recording. I guess it isn't so much the surveillance itself that bothers me, its three things: 1) the idea that technology now allows surveillance to be ubiquitous, 2) that the security guard's observations don't attempt to identify me and observations don't "persist" across multiple visits/venues, and 3)that all the surveillance data is archived forever - ready to be abused/sold/profited-from whenever somebody thins of a way to make a buck out of it (or, more paranoid/cynically, invents new retroactive laws then goes looking for past indiscretions…)
  - e12e 13y ago
    > What's the difference between such surveillance and a security guard wondering around looking for suspicious activity and/or protecting shoppers/businesses? Scale and awareness? Scale, because if you ask that guard, who was buying what with whom, 742 days ago, chances are that guard won't be able to answer in any meaningful way. A database might (if eg: indexed on biometrics). Awareness, because we come to ignore cameras, while if someone is actually there, looking at you, you are aware of being watched. (And also aware when their back is turned, so you can sneak a kiss from your mistress, or whatever you're not comfortable doing "on the permanent record" -- but might not be wrong).
Sven7 13y ago
Fucking Yeti! I know you are out there. I'll find you.
- bigiain 13y ago
  And, of course: http://xkcd.com/1235/ http://xkcd.com/1235/
conformal 13y ago
same here! i want nothing to do with the world of pointless media sharing or other people's perception that recording everything is worthwhile. if i could legally destroy every glass rig that was anywhere near me, i would be a happy person indeed. the unfortunate situation that now arises is a surveillance arms race, wherein it is illegal (in most countries) to undertake destructive or jamming actions against surveillance technology, be it radio or cellular frequency EM waves, a horde of idiots with cameras or the intelligence services that record all internet traffic, including this post. i would rather not participate, but the concept of passive/massive resistance simply will not work against such technology. i don't want to develop my own countersurveillance to keep the glassholes at bay. however, i and people who care about privacy are left with few options. i would love to see some legit countermeasures for glass.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

I don't want to be recorded. At All!! No video, no audio, no photographs. NOTHING!! Take your Glass somewhere else. I am off-limits.

by sismoc 13y ago

I don't want to be recorded. At All!! No video, no audio, no photographs. NOTHING!! Take your Glass somewhere else. I am off-limits.

gnaritas 13y ago

What makes you think you have a right to tell someone else what they can record in a public place? You cannot have an expectation of privacy in public.

bigiain 13y ago
(This is the beginning of a much longer comment I wrote in another thread a few days back - see the full version here if you're interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6043640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6043640 ) "You have no expectation of privacy when in public." I'm seeing this objection a lot lately, and perhaps I'm showing my age here, but I've certainly got an "expectation of being largely individually anonymous when in public". While there's nothing to stop people looking for me and possibly finding me in public - I _don't_ expect people(/corporations/tlagencies) to be recording everybody in public spaces and archiving them permanently in ways that allow all archived recordings of me to eventually be crossreferenced and de-anonymised.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > Personally, I'm of the opinion that "public space personally identifiable data collection" should be regulated similarly to HIPPA. I don't think that's possible; I don't think regulation can work here. Things like HIPPA and PCI regulate a very small number of providers. Regulating the general public at large from getting a picture of you in public on their Google Glass type device just isn't really technically or socially feasible and that will be where the majority of this type of surveillance happens. Beyond that, the next generation doesn't have the privacy expectations that you do; they see you as an old man clinging to old ways. > I _don't_ expect people(/corporations/tlagencies) to be recording everybody in public spaces and archiving them permanently in ways that allow all archived recordings of me to eventually be crossreferenced and de-anonymised. Then adjust your expectations, because that is the future and it won't and likely can't be stopped. Have a look at the movie A Scanner Darkly to see a more feasible solution, anonymous masks worn by those who don't want to be seen.
  - bigiain 13y ago
    You're probably right… To clarify though… I don't expect to "stop" Larry or Serge (or anyone else) from walking through Delores Park with their Glass on while I'm there (at the same time, I fully expect the doorman at Zeitgeist to tell em "Sorry, you can't come in here with those"). An individual recording stuff they're seeing anyway is pretty much "their right" - what they then choose to do with that recording though, is just as much their responsibility. For example, if you record someone walking out of Good Vibrations or Crazy Horse, and you choose to upload that to YouTube to make fun of them, and that person then loses their job over it (perhaps at the church-owned school they work at?) - I'd like to see you held to account for that action (and held financially responsible for breaching someone else's privacy). This is actually codified into my local (NSW, Australian) Law in part. It's legal to record (audio and/or video) any interaction you have with a police officer. It's _not_ legal to "publish" that recording without the officers consent. Practically, it's been determined that you can't introduce a recording of your interaction with police as evidence in court (at least without the recorded police's agreement), but you _can_ tell the judge you've got a recording that proves a police officer is lying in his testimony, and the judge can request to see the recording. This has become very well known amongst profiled and targeted groups (for me, many motorcycle riders indiscriminately targeted as "outlaw motorcycle gang members" routinely record all police interactions and several high-profile lawyers recommend it). Where I think this become important - is when many such recordings are collected together. Larry and his Glass, you and your Glass - they have small scale privacy implications, and barring those users doing something obviously stupid with them (which is no different from cellphone camera "etiquette" - if you go hanging outside abortion clinics, mental health clinics, drug rehabilitation centers, or schools with your camera/phone/Glass - and distribute the pictures you capture, you should expect consequences). I think though that Google (or anybody else) should consider the collection of many many user's Glass images/video/audio to be a potential-nightmare privacy problem _for them_. Before they start archiving all that, I think someone should be asking the same sort of questions you'd ask the junior developer who says "I'm just logging all the form data, so we can use it for debugging later" - You'd be asking "Hang on, _all_ the form data? The personally identifying information? The credit card number/expiry/ccv? The social security number? The medical history? And you're just writing that all out in cleartext to the public webserver logfles? Ummm, nope. I've just revoked your commit credentials and powered down the webserver - you might want to gather your things, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out…" I don't think it "shouldn't be allowed", but I do think people implementing wholesale gathering of "public space personally identifiable data" should be held to high standards of responsibility for having that collection - "High" as in "if we screw up and this data get misused/exposed/stolen, that'll be to a very high level of likelyhood a CEO/CTO/company-destroying event" standards. You don't "just collect all the health information you can", you don't "just collect all the credit card information you can", _I'd_ like public-space surveillance to be the same. I'd like mall operators to say "Of course we don't archive video surveillance - we've got procedures and policies in place to delete all recordings over 1 week old unless we get a written police request for specific cameras/times/persons-of-interest, and we have a monthly task that checks and ensures that policy is adhered to."

bigiain 13y ago

I also don't want to be recorded by convenience store or shopping mall cctv, or by repo man ANPR, or by red light / speeding cameras. We've lost that argument though. What I would like to see, is for there to be appropriate responsibility assumed by the people taking advantage of the privilege of recording everything. I eagerly await the first few court cases where someone drunkenly records and uploads to youtube something that they _really_ shouldn't have, and a judge and jury decides it's entirely appropriate to hold Glass-wearers to account for what they choose to record and publish.

izendejas 13y ago
I'm genuinely curious: why don't you want to be recorded at malls et al? What's the difference between such surveillance and a security guard wondering around looking for suspicious activity and/or protecting shoppers/businesses? Surely, it can be abused, but it can also help protect "suspicious" individuals from being profiled/targeted maliciously by such security guard, for example. What if you were hit an intersection and said cameras helped to identify the individual who hit you and then ran, would that change your mind? I don't think surveillance is the problem as much as who does it and the laws they implement.
- bigiain 13y ago
  The difference is "recording". Or, more specifically, recording and never deleting the recording. I guess it isn't so much the surveillance itself that bothers me, its three things: 1) the idea that technology now allows surveillance to be ubiquitous, 2) that the security guard's observations don't attempt to identify me and observations don't "persist" across multiple visits/venues, and 3)that all the surveillance data is archived forever - ready to be abused/sold/profited-from whenever somebody thins of a way to make a buck out of it (or, more paranoid/cynically, invents new retroactive laws then goes looking for past indiscretions…)
- e12e 13y ago
  > What's the difference between such surveillance and a security guard wondering around looking for suspicious activity and/or protecting shoppers/businesses? Scale and awareness? Scale, because if you ask that guard, who was buying what with whom, 742 days ago, chances are that guard won't be able to answer in any meaningful way. A database might (if eg: indexed on biometrics). Awareness, because we come to ignore cameras, while if someone is actually there, looking at you, you are aware of being watched. (And also aware when their back is turned, so you can sneak a kiss from your mistress, or whatever you're not comfortable doing "on the permanent record" -- but might not be wrong).

Sven7 13y ago

Fucking Yeti! I know you are out there. I'll find you.

bigiain 13y ago
And, of course: http://xkcd.com/1235/ http://xkcd.com/1235/

conformal 13y ago

same here! i want nothing to do with the world of pointless media sharing or other people's perception that recording everything is worthwhile. if i could legally destroy every glass rig that was anywhere near me, i would be a happy person indeed. the unfortunate situation that now arises is a surveillance arms race, wherein it is illegal (in most countries) to undertake destructive or jamming actions against surveillance technology, be it radio or cellular frequency EM waves, a horde of idiots with cameras or the intelligence services that record all internet traffic, including this post. i would rather not participate, but the concept of passive/massive resistance simply will not work against such technology. i don't want to develop my own countersurveillance to keep the glassholes at bay. however, i and people who care about privacy are left with few options. i would love to see some legit countermeasures for glass.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]