4 ms·

I'm flattering myself and thinking that you may be paraphrasing an argument I frequently make and have made on hear, but you're putting better than I usually do

I'm flattering myself and thinking that you may be paraphrasing an argument I frequently make and have made on hear, but you're putting better than I usually do. To you point I would add that when we conceive these laws in the first place, we do so within a particular context of technology that forms our notions of what is public and private. The context completely changes when technology advances as radically as we've seen it advance. That's why we might not give two thoughts about an individual police officer tailing someone. But affixing cheap cameras, microprocessors, and location trackers to every aspect of public life isn't the "same thing," as the proponents of these tracking devices would have you believe.

e12e 12y ago
Indeed. This is not a new development: "The narrower doctrine may have satisfied the demands of society at a time when the abuse to be guarded against could rarely have arisen without violating a contract or a special confidence; but now that modern devices afford abundant opportunities for the perpetration of such wrongs without any participation by the injured party, the protection granted by the law must be placed upon a broader foundation. While, for instance, the state of the photographic art was such that one's picture could seldom be taken without his consciously "sitting" for the purpose, the law of contract or of trust might afford the prudent man sufficient safeguards against the improper circulation of his portrait; but since the latest advances in photographic art have rendered it possible to take pictures surreptitiously, the doctrines of contract and of trust are inadequate to support the required protection, and the law of tort must be resorted to. The right of property in its widest sense, including all possession, including all rights and privileges, and hence embracing the right to an inviolate personality, affords alone that broad basis upon which the protection which the individual demands can be rested." -- "Right to Privacy" Warren & Brandeis December 15, 1890 http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/priva... [ed: formatting]

e12e 12y ago

Indeed. This is not a new development: "The narrower doctrine may have satisfied the demands of society at a time when the abuse to be guarded against could rarely have arisen without violating a contract or a special confidence; but now that modern devices afford abundant opportunities for the perpetration of such wrongs without any participation by the injured party, the protection granted by the law must be placed upon a broader foundation. While, for instance, the state of the photographic art was such that one's picture could seldom be taken without his consciously "sitting" for the purpose, the law of contract or of trust might afford the prudent man sufficient safeguards against the improper circulation of his portrait; but since the latest advances in photographic art have rendered it possible to take pictures surreptitiously, the doctrines of contract and of trust are inadequate to support the required protection, and the law of tort must be resorted to. The right of property in its widest sense, including all possession, including all rights and privileges, and hence embracing the right to an inviolate personality, affords alone that broad basis upon which the protection which the individual demands can be rested." -- "Right to Privacy" Warren & Brandeis December 15, 1890 http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/priva... [ed: formatting]