5 ms·

Why are you against having your car tracked? You're in public, aren't you? Why do you think you have a right to privacy in public?

ChuckMcM 13y ago
Can we just not go there? There is a qualitative difference between "being in public" and "being recorded while in public" and "being recorded in public over an extended period of time." You take a picture on the beach and catch me in the frame, I'm totally fine with that, you take pictures of that beach every day for a year and then put IDs on every 'face' so that you've got a history of everyone who has been to the beach, I'm much less comfortable with that, you create an API so that someone can send you a picture of a face and you will give them the history of that face at the beach for the last 12 months, I've got a huge problem with that.
- Retric 13y ago
  FYI: You where just trolled. Sure, it feels go to respond, but it's also a waste of everyone's time to read a troll and the responses. It also promotes them making more comments like that. Aka: Don't feed the trolls.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    I'm not a troll, I just know there is no legal precedent for this public privacy idea, and that there is no moral grounds for it as a human right. Someone who's been around here as long as you have should know better than to cry troll so quickly.
newman314 13y ago
Why not? Do you walk around naked at all times?
blah32497 13y ago
I think this is a perfectly legitimate question. What is the parent post genuinely concerned about? (assuming he's not hauling drugs)
- tdfx 13y ago
  Your argument is similar to the "why are you scared if you've got nothing to hide?" response to the NSA scandal. According to society, we all should be perfect citizens whose outward lives perfectly reflect our inward, private thoughts and actions. But we're not, and evidence to the contrary can be used against us. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you are perfect. You don't exceed the speed limit, you don't haul drugs. But one of your elected officials really enjoys visiting his secret girlfriend on Sunday evenings. Do you still trust him to vote objectively in every circumstance? True, I can't see XYZ agency using their records to threaten elected officials, either. But I doubt anyone was worried that promoting an egotistical bureaucrat in the Bureau of Investigation in the early 1900s would ever lead to the reign of J. Edgar Hoover. The whole point is that these things aren't a big deal on their own -- it's the slippery slope concept that should concern you.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    This isn't a privacy argument, you already (should) have privacy in the situations where you're not around other people or out in the open. This is about the times when you're out on the street with everybody else. That's when you can't reasonably expect EVERYONE TO LOOK AWAY when you walk into a store, or buy a coffee or throw your trash on the ground. It's those times when you're not private. You know, in public.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      These things aren't legally protected because our cultural and instinctive expectations forbid them. Try walking down the street and looking every single person you pass directly in the eye for as long as they're visible. See how they react. Follow them around. Write down everything they're doing. Let us all know what happens.
- forgotAgain 13y ago
  What is the parent post genuinely concerned about? For myself, nothing. I have to say I lead a rather mundane life. My objection is not for myself, it's for others. I don't want reporters tracked. I don't want whistleblowers tracked. I don't want government employees to feel threatened they may lose their jobs because they have a private life. For those people to be safe we all have to be protected from government tracking.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
What kind of stuff do you buy at stores? Mind if I have a look? I mean, you're in public when you buy the stuff. Please post your checking account and credit card statements in the reply. Thanks.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  He uses ATMs in public too right? I also want to know his debit card PIN. What right does he have to privacy?
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Even if he had that right, why would he want to use it?
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      He's probably hiding something nefarious from us. I can think of no possible other reason to desire privacy.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  Right. Because some computer somewhere knowing that yesterday I drove 90mph on the I-5 from LA to San Diego is exactly the same as you knowing my credit card number. Got it.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Redact the account number if you don't trust me. I just need a list of everything you bought, let's say it's, umm, to help me budget.
    - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
      Oh, is that all. The CC statement is not very detailed. From the last two months, you'll see several deliveries from Mountain Mikes Pizza, some various (non-descript) charges at Amazon ranging from a few dollars (music) to a few hundred dollars (bought a smoker), my $7.99 NetFlix sub, my bi-weekly delivery of organic fruits/veggies from a "local" farm (Farm Fresh To You), the equipment protection plan for my phone, the Veritas Instrument rental for my kid, ~5k in car repair last month at Volkswagen, monthly membership to City Beach, my web hosting bill (Rochen Host), DVD rental from RedBox, a donation to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, I stopped at a local pub (The Hopyard) for a couple pints and I reloaded my BART card.
maratd 13y ago
It's not a right, but a desire and a desire that can be realized with simple planning. Is there some reason a person shouldn't implement methods that limit exposure?
alexqgb 13y ago
Don't be a idiot. You should know as well as anyone that simply "being in public" actually preserves a large amount of privacy and anonymity. Consider, for, instance, what would happen if any of the countless people you pass by daily decided to follow your every step, stalking you, recording everything you say and do, waiting for you in the street when you got home, then relentlessly pursuing you again when you leave. You'd have the person arrested for harassment. In a functioning democracy, it's not the thickness of the doors that prevents them from being kicked in, but the strength of the laws that restrains those who would do the kicking. Likewise, the "reasonable expectation of privacy" is not limited to the narrow range of situations in which violations are physically impossible, but the much broader range of situations in which violations are corrosive enough to be socially and politically unacceptable.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  > what would happen if any of the countless people you pass by daily decided to follow your every step, stalking you, recording everything you say and do, waiting for you in the street when you got home, then relentlessly pursuing you again when you leave. I'm pretty sure what you just described there is exactly what paparazzi do. I don't believe any have been arrested for doing that. (Mind you, if they do get arrested, it is usually for something else.)
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    That's very much a special case, and one that effects a microscopic portion of the population. Were that level of harassment to become part of daily life as lived by millions, the presently tentative efforts to rein them legally in would become very serious, very quickly.
    - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
      But that isn't a special case because of law. It is only special because only a microscopic portion of the population is that popular with the rest of the population. People don't do this to me because no one is buying those pictures and putting them in magazines... not because some laws give me extra privacy. You asked what would happen. The answer is the same for me as it is for Jay-Z or Tom Hanks: Nothing.
mixmastamyk 13y ago
Interesting question. However, I think you've got it backwards. What right does the government have to track individuals? That's what we should be asking.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

Can we just not go there? There is a qualitative difference between "being in public" and "being recorded while in public" and "being recorded in public over an extended period of time." You take a picture on the beach and catch me in the frame, I'm totally fine with that, you take pictures of that beach every day for a year and then put IDs on every 'face' so that you've got a history of everyone who has been to the beach, I'm much less comfortable with that, you create an API so that someone can send you a picture of a face and you will give them the history of that face at the beach for the last 12 months, I've got a huge problem with that.

Retric 13y ago
FYI: You where just trolled. Sure, it feels go to respond, but it's also a waste of everyone's time to read a troll and the responses. It also promotes them making more comments like that. Aka: Don't feed the trolls.
- diminoten 13y ago
  I'm not a troll, I just know there is no legal precedent for this public privacy idea, and that there is no moral grounds for it as a human right. Someone who's been around here as long as you have should know better than to cry troll so quickly.

newman314 13y ago

Why not? Do you walk around naked at all times?

blah32497 13y ago

I think this is a perfectly legitimate question. What is the parent post genuinely concerned about? (assuming he's not hauling drugs)

tdfx 13y ago
Your argument is similar to the "why are you scared if you've got nothing to hide?" response to the NSA scandal. According to society, we all should be perfect citizens whose outward lives perfectly reflect our inward, private thoughts and actions. But we're not, and evidence to the contrary can be used against us. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you are perfect. You don't exceed the speed limit, you don't haul drugs. But one of your elected officials really enjoys visiting his secret girlfriend on Sunday evenings. Do you still trust him to vote objectively in every circumstance? True, I can't see XYZ agency using their records to threaten elected officials, either. But I doubt anyone was worried that promoting an egotistical bureaucrat in the Bureau of Investigation in the early 1900s would ever lead to the reign of J. Edgar Hoover. The whole point is that these things aren't a big deal on their own -- it's the slippery slope concept that should concern you.
- diminoten 13y ago
  This isn't a privacy argument, you already (should) have privacy in the situations where you're not around other people or out in the open. This is about the times when you're out on the street with everybody else. That's when you can't reasonably expect EVERYONE TO LOOK AWAY when you walk into a store, or buy a coffee or throw your trash on the ground. It's those times when you're not private. You know, in public.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    These things aren't legally protected because our cultural and instinctive expectations forbid them. Try walking down the street and looking every single person you pass directly in the eye for as long as they're visible. See how they react. Follow them around. Write down everything they're doing. Let us all know what happens.
forgotAgain 13y ago
What is the parent post genuinely concerned about? For myself, nothing. I have to say I lead a rather mundane life. My objection is not for myself, it's for others. I don't want reporters tracked. I don't want whistleblowers tracked. I don't want government employees to feel threatened they may lose their jobs because they have a private life. For those people to be safe we all have to be protected from government tracking.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

What kind of stuff do you buy at stores? Mind if I have a look? I mean, you're in public when you buy the stuff. Please post your checking account and credit card statements in the reply. Thanks.

jlgreco 13y ago
He uses ATMs in public too right? I also want to know his debit card PIN. What right does he have to privacy?
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Even if he had that right, why would he want to use it?
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    He's probably hiding something nefarious from us. I can think of no possible other reason to desire privacy.
jack-r-abbit 13y ago
Right. Because some computer somewhere knowing that yesterday I drove 90mph on the I-5 from LA to San Diego is exactly the same as you knowing my credit card number. Got it.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Redact the account number if you don't trust me. I just need a list of everything you bought, let's say it's, umm, to help me budget.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    Oh, is that all. The CC statement is not very detailed. From the last two months, you'll see several deliveries from Mountain Mikes Pizza, some various (non-descript) charges at Amazon ranging from a few dollars (music) to a few hundred dollars (bought a smoker), my $7.99 NetFlix sub, my bi-weekly delivery of organic fruits/veggies from a "local" farm (Farm Fresh To You), the equipment protection plan for my phone, the Veritas Instrument rental for my kid, ~5k in car repair last month at Volkswagen, monthly membership to City Beach, my web hosting bill (Rochen Host), DVD rental from RedBox, a donation to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, I stopped at a local pub (The Hopyard) for a couple pints and I reloaded my BART card.

maratd 13y ago

It's not a right, but a desire and a desire that can be realized with simple planning. Is there some reason a person shouldn't implement methods that limit exposure?

alexqgb 13y ago

Don't be a idiot. You should know as well as anyone that simply "being in public" actually preserves a large amount of privacy and anonymity. Consider, for, instance, what would happen if any of the countless people you pass by daily decided to follow your every step, stalking you, recording everything you say and do, waiting for you in the street when you got home, then relentlessly pursuing you again when you leave. You'd have the person arrested for harassment. In a functioning democracy, it's not the thickness of the doors that prevents them from being kicked in, but the strength of the laws that restrains those who would do the kicking. Likewise, the "reasonable expectation of privacy" is not limited to the narrow range of situations in which violations are physically impossible, but the much broader range of situations in which violations are corrosive enough to be socially and politically unacceptable.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago
> what would happen if any of the countless people you pass by daily decided to follow your every step, stalking you, recording everything you say and do, waiting for you in the street when you got home, then relentlessly pursuing you again when you leave. I'm pretty sure what you just described there is exactly what paparazzi do. I don't believe any have been arrested for doing that. (Mind you, if they do get arrested, it is usually for something else.)
- alexqgb 13y ago
  That's very much a special case, and one that effects a microscopic portion of the population. Were that level of harassment to become part of daily life as lived by millions, the presently tentative efforts to rein them legally in would become very serious, very quickly.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    But that isn't a special case because of law. It is only special because only a microscopic portion of the population is that popular with the rest of the population. People don't do this to me because no one is buying those pictures and putting them in magazines... not because some laws give me extra privacy. You asked what would happen. The answer is the same for me as it is for Jay-Z or Tom Hanks: Nothing.

mixmastamyk 13y ago

Interesting question. However, I think you've got it backwards. What right does the government have to track individuals? That's what we should be asking.