4 ms·

Ah, why didn't I think of that? We could all just be traveling entirely in private and this would be a non-issue.

diminoten 13y ago
I was speaking more to the "communications/personal finance" bits you mentioned. You can't be wholly private. Merely by existing, people will be able to learn some things about you. Nothing you can do about it.
- knowaveragejoe 13y ago
  Sure, and by natural extension there are some people, whom you will never meet (or even be aware of their doing so), who will get to become intimately familiar with the aforementioned data, journalized and cross-referenced in handy tables and graphs. Indefinitely. Nothing you can do about it! Might as well just accept it. Really, all of this hubbub around privacy concerns is totally unfounded. It's the way things have to be.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    They have to be this way because of how we structured the English language. When you act in public, you are, definitionally, not acting privately. There is literally nothing to be done about that short of changing what words we use. Your movements in public are in absolutely no way equal to your conversations in private. You're trying to equate things which aren't equal, and you're taking an extremist, hard-line stance on what should and shouldn't be private. It's utterly silly to think that a person can exist in society without anyone else knowing they exist. Soon you'll claim it's a violation of privacy to even look at other people.
    - knowaveragejoe 13y ago
      > When you act in public, you are, definitionally, not acting privately. There is literally nothing to be done about that It seems that lately we're redefining what "public" is when it comes to the other privacy issues that are in the media spotlight recently. > It's utterly silly to think that a person can exist in society without anyone else knowing they exist There's no disagreement there, but do note that in no way did I attempt to make that equivocation either. There is a distinct difference between someone knowing you exist or seeing you drive by, and someone having extensive, journalized, cross-referenced data, stored potentially indefinitely for perusal at their discretion. You will never know of this person or the fact they're studying your data. Right now, there are only 3 states even pretending to place responsible restrictions on the usage of this particular data. That is the issue. Of course we will not be getting rid of ALPRs, but we can certainly make sure they're used for reasonable things. The potential for abuse is huge, and that's why there's outrage over the issue.

I was speaking more to the "communications/personal finance" bits you mentioned. You can't be wholly private. Merely by existing, people will be able to learn some things about you. Nothing you can do about it.

knowaveragejoe 13y ago
Sure, and by natural extension there are some people, whom you will never meet (or even be aware of their doing so), who will get to become intimately familiar with the aforementioned data, journalized and cross-referenced in handy tables and graphs. Indefinitely. Nothing you can do about it! Might as well just accept it. Really, all of this hubbub around privacy concerns is totally unfounded. It's the way things have to be.
- diminoten 13y ago
  They have to be this way because of how we structured the English language. When you act in public, you are, definitionally, not acting privately. There is literally nothing to be done about that short of changing what words we use. Your movements in public are in absolutely no way equal to your conversations in private. You're trying to equate things which aren't equal, and you're taking an extremist, hard-line stance on what should and shouldn't be private. It's utterly silly to think that a person can exist in society without anyone else knowing they exist. Soon you'll claim it's a violation of privacy to even look at other people.
  - knowaveragejoe 13y ago
    > When you act in public, you are, definitionally, not acting privately. There is literally nothing to be done about that It seems that lately we're redefining what "public" is when it comes to the other privacy issues that are in the media spotlight recently. > It's utterly silly to think that a person can exist in society without anyone else knowing they exist There's no disagreement there, but do note that in no way did I attempt to make that equivocation either. There is a distinct difference between someone knowing you exist or seeing you drive by, and someone having extensive, journalized, cross-referenced data, stored potentially indefinitely for perusal at their discretion. You will never know of this person or the fact they're studying your data. Right now, there are only 3 states even pretending to place responsible restrictions on the usage of this particular data. That is the issue. Of course we will not be getting rid of ALPRs, but we can certainly make sure they're used for reasonable things. The potential for abuse is huge, and that's why there's outrage over the issue.