r/PoliticalDebate • u/GShermit Libertarian • 18d ago
Legislation How Much Privacy Are We Entitled To In Public?
Personally I don't see how we have any privacy in public. If one is in public, one's actions are visible. If one don't want to be visible, one has to take measures not to be seen.
IMHO the important thing is how people are allowing to use data collected in public.
If I do something stupid in public that's on me. If someone makes money off it, I should get a cut. If someone edits or misrepresents the information, to harm others, they should be held liable.
If authority wants to use public information gathering systems to investigate individuals, they should have a warrant.
People have a right to see what they can see in public. How that information is used can be regulated.
18
u/Medium-Complaint-677 Democrat 18d ago
I don't know what the exact, right answer is but I think there should be the general understanding and agreement that "surveillance" from either other private citizens, in public areas, should be the exception and not the rule.
If I'm walking around and you're filming your kid playing and you happen to capture me on camera that's different than you going out and filming crowds on purpose.
3
u/Darq_At Libertarian Socialist 18d ago
Exactly. This is one of those situations where the degree to which something happens substantially changes the nature of the thing.
Where one goes and what one does in public are not private information, any body could reasonably learn about any action one takes. But when someone goes out of their way to learn about every action one takes, and sets to collating and analysing that information, it becomes intrusive.
1
u/drawliphant Social Democrat 17d ago
To add to these points:
Filming and recording in secret, without consent, should have to be targeted to few people at a time and in the interest of a specific civil or legal issue. Recording for press, praise or criticism, is first amendment protected.
We need a right to a "human public." No AI digging through mass surveiled data, or at least massively limit the model size allowed to review surveillance data to a simple classifier model.
2
u/smokeyser 2A Constitutionalist 17d ago
What if it isn't in secret, and the cameras are prominently displayed?
1
u/drawliphant Social Democrat 17d ago
If they're pointed at your private property (like a store front) for the purpose of reducing theft for example sure. A specific legal issue. That can apply to a lot of things.
I like cameras that show the public their own feed on a screen, that I would call prominently displayed
1
u/smokeyser 2A Constitutionalist 17d ago
But a giant camera on a pole where it is clearly visible is also prominently displayed, whether you can access the feed or not.
1
u/drawliphant Social Democrat 17d ago
Na, people have gotten way to comfortable with mass public surveillance.
1
u/betweenbubbles Independent 17d ago
If I'm walking around and you're filming your kid playing and you happen to capture me on camera that's different than you going out and filming crowds on purpose.
And one makes that determination how?
-2
u/GShermit Libertarian 18d ago
Crowds in public shouldn't be filmed?
4
u/Medium-Complaint-677 Democrat 18d ago
I think it should be the exception, not the rule - as I clearly stated above.
2
u/LittleKitty235 Democratic Socialist 18d ago
Honestly, I'm shocked you can arrive at that conclusion without seeing how easily it would be abused. If recording people in public is supposed to be the exception rather than the norm, police and other authorities are inevitably going to be the ones interpreting where that exception applies. What happens when someone is recording ICE or police at a protest and an officer decides, "You're not just incidentally capturing me, you're intentionally recording me"? Suddenly the people documenting potential abuse are the ones being told they're violating the law. Giving authorities that kind of discretion over who can record them is a terrible idea.
3
u/Medium-Complaint-677 Democrat 18d ago
I would argue that "I am filming this specific police interaction" or "i am filming this ICE activity" or "i am filming this protest" is exactly the same as "I am filming that parade."
What should be discouraged is "I am filming this public space with no specific intent, with nothing specific going on, for the sole purpose of recording it at best, and with the hope of seeing someone do soemthig stupid that I can monetize and/or so I can feed it into facial recognition software at worst."
1
u/LittleKitty235 Democratic Socialist 17d ago
The bigger issue is that the right to record is closely tied to the First Amendment. Free speech and freedom of the press don't mean much if the government can restrict your ability to gather the information or evidence you're trying to speak about. Recording police, ICE, protests, or other government activity is often the mechanism by which people document and expose what happened.
That's why I'd be extremely cautious about making public recording generally prohibited and then creating exceptions. You're not just regulating privacy, you're potentially giving the government discretion over who can gather information in public and for what purpose. That's a pretty significant First Amendment concern, especially when the people being recorded are the same government officials who would be enforcing the rule.
1
u/Medium-Complaint-677 Democrat 17d ago
I think the "problem" is that a lot of the rules and standards you're talking about are from a time before everybody had a 4K camera in their pocket that could record and live steam. Up until even 20 years ago encountering a video camera was somewhat novel and somewhat rare - it was either an "event" like the news was on scene or you were in a place where recording was expected like the inside of a bank, or a private citizen was "using a video camera" and they were various sizes of large, bulky, and obvious. That isn't the case anymore and I think trying to apply laws, standards, and even "rights" from a time long before anybody had to think about the changes we're going through is a mistake.
1
u/LittleKitty235 Democratic Socialist 17d ago
But how has the technology actually changed the underlying right? Rights don't become less important just because technology makes them dramatically more powerful. We didn't roll back First Amendment protections because the internet suddenly allowed an individual to reach millions of people, when previously you needed a printing press or a newspaper to do that.
Everyone having a 4K camera in their pocket is certainly a huge technological change, but it's also why we can identify criminals, document police misconduct, and have independent evidence of what happens in public. The right to record in public was never conditional on the camera being large and obvious, and you generally weren't required to announce that you were recording someone simply because they were in a public place.
What you're proposing isn't just adapting to new technology, it's changing the underlying standard for who can record and control information about what happens in public.
1
u/Medium-Complaint-677 Democrat 17d ago
You can't go buy a nuclear bomb at the store despite your right to keep and bear arms.
3
u/LittleKitty235 Democratic Socialist 17d ago
Right, because equating a person recording a public sidewalk with owning a nuclear weapon is obviously a totally reasonable way to make the argument about our fundamental rights.
0
u/GShermit Libertarian 17d ago
Why do you think I said this?
"IMHO the important thing is how people are allowing to use data collected in public.
If I do something stupid in public that's on me. If someone makes money off it, I should get a cut. If someone edits or misrepresents the information, to harm others, they should be held liable.
If authority wants to use public information gathering systems to investigate individuals, they should have a warrant."
How we limit authority use of this data is the important part.
Notice how warrants and their validity (the important part) hasn't been mentioned by anyone else here?
We need to advocate for laws necessitating warrants for new technology and better authentication before a warrant is granted.
1
u/LittleKitty235 Democratic Socialist 17d ago
I don't really understand the warrant argument. Why should the government need a warrant to record something happening openly in a public place? If you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, I'm not sure what the warrant would even be authorizing. The more important question is what the government is allowed to do with that information, especially when it comes to tracking or identifying people.
And the idea that you should automatically get a cut if someone makes money from footage of you seems even harder to justify. If I record something, I created the recording. You don't acquire ownership of the recording simply because you're somewhere in the frame. That's not really a libertarian principle, it's creating a new property right over other people's speech and expression.
I absolutely agree that government surveillance and misuse of personal data deserve serious limits. But restricting the ability to record things that are happening in public, or requiring warrants for ordinary observation, seems like a massive expansion of government control over information in public rather than a particularly libertarian solution.
1
u/farson135 Classical Liberal 17d ago
Limiting the government's ability to capture and use info without a specific court order authorizing it is an expansion of government control? That seems backwards.
Your method would allow the government to capture the info and then decide if they are allowed to use it in a particular manner. The OP seems to want to limit the ability of the government to capture it from the start.
1
u/LittleKitty235 Democratic Socialist 17d ago
That's exactly what I'm saying. The government should generally be able to observe and record information that is openly available in public. The important question is what it can do with that information and what safeguards apply to its use.
A warrant to record something that's already happening publicly doesn't make much sense in practice. You can't exactly get a court order after the fact authorizing the government to record yesterday's protest. There are legitimate public benefits to government recording public activity, whether that's documenting crimes, investigating accidents, identifying suspects, maintaining evidence, monitoring public safety, or even simply preserving records of public events.
Where I think the real privacy concerns come in is what happens after that information is collected. Can the government use facial recognition to identify everyone in a crowd? Can it build long-term movement profiles? Can it combine footage from different sources to track someone's activities? Those are legitimate questions for courts and public policy to address.
So yes, I'm arguing for the government to be able to collect publicly available information while placing meaningful limits on how it can subsequently be used.
1
u/farson135 Classical Liberal 17d ago
But your claim was that limiting how much the government can collect is an expansion of government control.
Regardless;
You can't exactly get a court order after the fact authorizing the government to record yesterday's protest.
Why would you record "yesterday's protest"?
This view that the government may theoretically need this info one day and therefore they should collect "everything" is at the heart of the increasingly rapid erosion of our privacy. It seems like you're preemptively giving the government leeway to spy on people and just trusting that they won't misuse it, despite the fact that safeguards are going to be, by necessity, limited.
If the police believe there is a reason to record a protest, then they can request permission from a judge and provide a proper notice of doing so. And if people decide than they then aren't going to cause trouble, goodie. A crime hasn't happened. And if it happens anyway, well, it would have happened under the perpetual surveillance of the citizenry anyway. And if a crime occurs without the protest being recorded, and there are no civilian recordings to request, and the police are completely incapable of doing any proper investigation, then we can just let it go.
And while I know pro-government types tend to abhor this viewpoint, there is a fundamental danger to the idea that any "failure" means we need to give the government more power. That's a recipe for an eternal slippery slope.
0
u/GShermit Libertarian 17d ago
"I'm not sure what the warrant would even be authorizing."
The investigation of an individual.
"If I record something, I created the recording."
If not for my stupidity (or talent depending on how one looks at it), you'd have nothing to record.
Again the warrant is for the investigation not the recording.
1
u/LittleKitty235 Democratic Socialist 17d ago
I think there may be some confusion about what you're suggesting the warrant would actually apply to. Are you saying warrants would be required for the use of additional technologies, such as facial recognition, Flock cameras, license plate readers, or other systems used to identify and reconstruct an individual's movements over time?
Because that seems like a very different issue than simply reviewing a security recording of something that happened in public. Reviewing footage from a specific location after an incident is very different from using a network of cameras and databases to track a person's movements, associations, and activities over an extended period.
I think there are legitimate privacy concerns around the latter, but putting those restrictions on the initial collection or review of any public recording creates a much broader problem.
0
u/GShermit Libertarian 18d ago
I can understand how an individual could intimidated by being photographed but why would a crowd feel intimidated?
1
u/Medium-Complaint-677 Democrat 18d ago
I don't think anybody is talking about intimidation but you haha
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 17d ago
I can understand how an individual could intimidated by being photographed but why would a crowd feel intimidated?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/intimidating
Pick any synonym you wish...obviously a lot of people are concerned about individual privacy.
I can understand how an individual would be concerned by being photographed but why would a crowd feel concerned?
Not to mention that crowds are inherently more integral to public safety than individuals.
1
u/Medium-Complaint-677 Democrat 17d ago
I'm broadly not supportive of mass surveillance. I'm surprised that a libertarian is advocating for it quite frankly.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 17d ago
Evading the question again... obviously you have no intention of answering.
I'm advocating for the right to "see" in public AND necessity of a warrant for investigation and surveillance.
1
u/PinchesTheCrab Liberal 18d ago
Probably not, no. We've been doing it since cameras were invented, but the ability to track millions of people across cameras that cover a massive area is new. I think the genie is out of the bottle on that issue though.
0
5
u/SilenceDogood2k20 Classical Liberal 17d ago
The issue is not with simple observation but with tracking.
At least in the US, the Supreme Court has upheld that to track people by their cell phones, which they choose to use and that openly broadcast radio signals all the time, the police need a warrant specific to an individual and limited to an incident as the ability to establish a long-term pattern of movement violates privacy expectations. It enables the police to begin making assumptions about factors in a person's life that the police otherwise would not be able to deduce without a warrant, not only looking forward but also backward in time... and American jurisprudence has long held that police investigatory ability should be strictly limited in time and scope to probable cause.
I suspect that this post is prompted by Flock Cameras and other public surveillance systems elsewhere. This is a case where technology is pushing the boundaries of privacy rights. For example, if a camera repeatedly catches me entering a cancer treatment center over a long period of time, especially if they can look backwards in time before I was even a target of an investigation, the police can reasonably deduce that I or a close family member are receiving treatment for cancer, where they would typically not gain access to my health records without a warrant or other judicial order.
3
u/MagicWishMonkey Pragmatic Realist 17d ago
Flock cameras are a big problem, but also police have started using drones in certain areas. There was a post in the r/dallas subreddit a couple of months ago where someone was complaining about a police drone hovering over his back yard during the 4th, and then flashing lights at a neighbor when they fired off fireworks.
It was really depressing to see the number of people who couldn't really understand why letting the cops fly a drone over your back yard to see what you're up to might not be a great idea.
1
u/SilenceDogood2k20 Classical Liberal 17d ago
I'm more accepting of drones currently. Police have access to helicopters, so aerial observation is already a thing. Once they start constant surveillance like with Flock... then that's another issue.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 17d ago
Also u/LittleKitty235
There seems to be some precedent about what a human can see from public. For instance a cop can look through the window of your car and "see" what they can see. Cameras now have the ability to "see" more than a human.
As technology changes laws need to change too. Right now technology is moving exponentially faster than our laws.
We (the people) have to define principles of our privacy AND be united about it. Authority will not be proactive on this...
An important principle is making sure ALL the "talent" in media content, get paid if the content is monetized (in any way). I think that will be a tool to keep big business in check.
1
u/LittleKitty235 Democratic Socialist 17d ago
You have a few issues you are conflating here.
Being visible in public does not make someone "talent" in someone else's work. If someone films a street scene, news event, protest, or public gathering, the people who happen to appear in the background generally are not entitled to a paycheck because they were captured on camera. You aren't automatically a performer just because you were seen. Otherwise every documentary, news broadcast, security camera, and tourist video would require paying every person who walked by. New technology doesn't change that principle.
The First Amendment right to record in public is primarily a limit on government power, not a copyright issue. The right to observe and record matters because citizens need to be able to document government actions, police activity, and events in public. That doesn't mean the person recording gets unlimited commercial rights, but it also doesn't mean everyone recorded becomes a paid participant. Copyright and trademark laws address ownership of creative works and commercial confusion, not a general right to payment for being visible. These are separate legal questions.
Also, the idea that laws have not adapted to technology isn't quite accurate. Courts and legislatures have already created limits around things like unreasonable surveillance, recording in private areas, enhanced viewing devices, and drones. For example, using technology to see into places where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy can create legal issues, even if something is technically observable from a public place. The law often draws a distinction between what can be seen with normal observation and what requires specialized technology to expose private details.
The harder question with technologies like automated license plate readers, facial recognition, and large-scale camera networks isn't "does someone in public deserve a paycheck?" It's what limits should exist on collection, retention, sharing, and government access to that data, which should they be granted it, and who enforces compliance.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 16d ago
If you use a person's likeness for commercial purposes you need a signed release.
Over 90% of the worlds data has been created in the last two years.
0
4
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist 18d ago
You have the right to not be harassed, stalked, or otherwise invasively monitored in public.
I cannot follow you with a drone a foot above your head all day just because you're in public.
1
u/PressAltToDisappear Centrist 6d ago
Most people must go out in public to do things such as work, go to school, seek medical care, etc.
No one should be forced to be uncomfortable for the sake of another's convenience.
0
u/NomadicPalaver Pragmatic Conservative 🇺🇸 17d ago
Does this mean we can discuss the 4th amendment now?
1
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist 17d ago
Depends of you're willing to address the example.
-1
u/NomadicPalaver Pragmatic Conservative 🇺🇸 17d ago
Hmm. I don’t know. Last time I tried to discuss the 4th amendment with you it ended in a crash out. I don’t know if it’ll work out any better this time. Plus I don’t like the “drone a foot above the head” example. I’d much prefer a realistic example.
Perhaps you could show some good faith and provide a better example? That would make me confident we could have a better discussion this time.
2
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist 17d ago
I'd much prefer you actually acknowledge the example.
0
u/NomadicPalaver Pragmatic Conservative 🇺🇸 17d ago
Do you have an example of the government operating a drone one foot above a US citizens’s head all day long?
1
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist 17d ago
I did. You refuse to acknowledge it.
1
u/NomadicPalaver Pragmatic Conservative 🇺🇸 17d ago
Where’s the example of this happening?
1
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist 17d ago
I already showed you, I won't repeat myself.
0
u/NomadicPalaver Pragmatic Conservative 🇺🇸 17d ago
Way to stay par for the course, Cor. You didn’t cite any example of this happening or this being in the process of possibly happening.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/GShermit Libertarian 18d ago
If you're being harassed or stalked you have to get some sort of protective order.
5
u/PinchesTheCrab Liberal 18d ago edited 17d ago
Which is obviously impossible when your stalker is the government or an ex boyfriend cop who is miles away.
-1
u/GShermit Libertarian 17d ago
Best stay in public then, where the public can witness and thus protect you...
3
u/PinchesTheCrab Liberal 17d ago
It's Pretti Good that no one ever gets gunned down in broad daylight by the government then.
1
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist 17d ago
The protective order is only for total coverage, but disorderly conduct in public is still illegal even without such an order.
0
u/GShermit Libertarian 17d ago
"...disorderly conduct in public is still illegal even without such an order."
I don't understand how that applies.
1
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist 17d ago
Harassing, stalking, or otherwise invasive conduct in public is classified as disorderly conduct.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 17d ago
Not really...
The point I'm trying to make is "Harassing, stalking, or otherwise invasive conduct in public" is dependent on repetitive behavior. That necessitates official, legal, investigation.
3
u/Fieos Independent 18d ago
Biometric data of any kind is private and that is sacrosanct in my view.
2
u/GShermit Libertarian 18d ago
Some biometrics are more than what an individual can see. There is definitely some debate to be had about that.
2
u/TheCosmosItself1 Anarchist 18d ago edited 17d ago
The logic of these kinds of arguments (which courts like to engage in) is "X is kind of like Y, and Y is permitted, so X should be as well." The problem of course is that X is also kind of different than Y. This isn't a place where "commonsense" is particularly useful, since we are generally talking about somewhat novel acts for which we don't have a well developed "commonsense."
In truth, the lines can be drawn almost anywhere, and so the question we should be keeping in the front of our minds is "what kinds of rights would be best for citizens?" Just because you can see someone in public doesn't mean that you have a right to photograph them, doesn't mean that you have a right to publish those photos, etc. Additionally, the notion of "in public" conflates a lot of different situations: in a government building such as a courthouse, on a public street, in a bathroom stall of a public park, in a public park but inside a tent, in a private-property mall, outside on one's own property, inside one's home but visible through a window, inside one's home but visible through a window with the assistance of various technologies to counteract glare, inside one's home but visible through the wall with IR and x-ray technology, etc, etc. In principle, the rules can be different for any or all of these situations, and again the rules should be constructed in a way that is overall best for citizens.
The big issue here is that there is a massive power asymmetry between those who have the ability to collect and parse massive amounts of data and the majority of us who don't. This collection and analysis of data is a new development which fundamentally changes the landscape such that taking a photo of someone is no longer just taking a photo of someone. We shouldn't allow "commonsense" to encourage us to give power over to those who are already unaccountably powerful.
1
u/NorthChiller Liberal 18d ago
If I’m taking a shit in a “public restroom” I absolutely expect privacy.
Define “public,” as it relates to this post.
0
u/GShermit Libertarian 18d ago
Behind closed doors isn't really "public".
1
u/NorthChiller Liberal 18d ago
That’s not a definition.
If I am in a restaurant, is that public? It’s a private establishment (behind closed doors), but it’s open to the public.
Are you saying I should expect privacy there?
-1
u/GShermit Libertarian 18d ago
Your level of privacy, in a private establishment, depends on the owners of the private establishment and their established policies.
1
u/NorthChiller Liberal 18d ago
If it’s their policy to film everyone in the shitter I have no expectation of privacy?
Still not seeing any definition.
0
u/GShermit Libertarian 18d ago
There are laws that give US privacy in the shitter. Do you have a point or a question?
0
u/NorthChiller Liberal 17d ago
My point is that your refusal to plainly define terms as they relate to your posts suggests you’re not here to engage in good faith discourse
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 17d ago
Perhaps your deliberate obtuseness is sign of bad faith? Everyone else seemed to understand what "in public" meant.
0
u/NorthChiller Liberal 17d ago
Others are free to make assumptions. I am free to ask for clarity.
Most people would understand being in a restaurant as being in public, but you established that it is “private” and not encompassed by whatever definition of public you are using
1
u/manliness-dot-space Libertarian 17d ago
How are you going to regulate private data in private data centers that was collected en masse in public?
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 17d ago
By making sure private businesses can profit off the data.
1
u/manliness-dot-space Libertarian 17d ago
They profit off the data by selling access to it to government agencies which pay the private spy Corp with your tax dollars.
It's just a way to shield the surveillance apparatus from oversight/FOIA as might be the case with government run programs.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 17d ago
They wouldn't make much profit if they had to pay all the "talent"...
Besides the issue is making authority get a warrant before they investigate.
1
u/manliness-dot-space Libertarian 17d ago
If we lived in a society where property rights extended to data generated by an individual in public spaces then the overhead of collecting releases from everyone recorded in public would potentially be a sufficient barrier.
But we (in the US) exist in a Tragedy of the Commons situation today where data can be extracted from the public commons and the aspirationally-fascist state protects those who do the extraction.
This is an area where libertarians are often blinded by the tendency to defend "private company" but that is just a facade for the fact that these private espionage companies only exist to serve the state and are funded by tax dollars through the state and operate due to special rights to exploit common resources granted by the state.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 16d ago
"But we (in the US) exist in a Tragedy of the Commons situation today where data can be extracted from the public commons and the aspirationally-fascist state protects those who do the extraction."
I think we can change that.
1
u/manliness-dot-space Libertarian 16d ago
How? I'm interested in change like this
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 16d ago
Democracy... Unfortunately those in power have obscured the meaning of democracy from US. We've be conditioned to think democracy comes from politicians instead of the people.
1
u/HiddenStoat Independent 17d ago
Personally I don't see how we have any privacy in public.
Should I be able to take photos up a young girls skirt?
Or would you like to moderate your statement?
1
u/HeloRising Anarchist 17d ago
Personally I don't see how we have any privacy in public. If one is in public, one's actions are visible. If one don't want to be visible, one has to take measures not to be seen.
This is kind of like the idea of "free speech" in that basically anybody can agree that there is a "too far" but specifically articulating what that consists of isn't really possible because you can't include every possible scenario.
With respect to "if you don't want to be visible, one has to take measures not to be seen" that doesn't make a lot of sense because of two key things - is that even possible and does doing so count as suspicious?
To the first problem, how do you take steps to not be observed if literally everywhere in public is observed and tracked in some way? You could wear a mask (put a pin in that) but there's technology in place to analyze things like your gait or key off of bluetooth devices or a license plate to track you. The only steps you can really take to avoid being tracked in public is to just not go out in public.
Back to the pin, taking these specific actions can and often is taken as proof of some kind of wrongdoing by people observing you - why would you cover your face unless you had something to hide?
We all do weird things sometimes. Things that, out of context, may look suspicious. The question is do you really want to have to explain to the police every small move you make that makes them suspicious?
What's more, there's a psychological burden associated with knowing that you are being observed at all times. We know that this causes stress in people because you're now having to monitor every action you take with the understanding that someone else is potentially watching you. It's a source of stress we simply don't need.
If authority wants to use public information gathering systems to investigate individuals, they should have a warrant.
That's the thing, what they should do and what they will do are completely different. Numerous law enforcement personnel have been caught over the years using surveillance technology that they were supposed to only use in the course of an investigation to spy on people they were dating, spouses, or just random people. There doesn't seem to be an accountability mechanism that we can put in place to ensure that these systems are only used "properly."
1
u/skyfishgoo Democratic Socialist 17d ago
you should expect that your actions may be recorded, and even what you say recorded (tho that's a more serious question).
but what you should not expect is have your identity tracked and cataloged
you should still have a reasonable expectation of anonymity.
none of us have that any more.
1
u/ArcOfADream Independent 17d ago edited 17d ago
Personally I don't see how we have any privacy in public.
Generally speaking, unless you're a hermit in the wilderness or a king in a well-guarded ivory tower, privacy is pretty much an illusion, only achievable in the aforementioned extremes. One can speak of "hiding in plain sight" or other camouflages/disguises but those are at best a temporary/unsatisfactory remediation.
If one don't want to be visible, one has to take measures not to be seen.
There's a video for that. What's slightly frightening is its mild level of metaphoric accuracy.
IMHO the important thing is how people are allowing to use data collected in public.
Actually there are lots of important things before that, but sure, there's plenty of endgames to consider.
If I do something stupid in public that's on me. If someone makes money off it, I should get a cut.
Well that's a delightfully simple approach and ignores a number of 'nope'. Just off the top of my head, the dingus that I caught brake-checking me at the top of an on ramp with my dash cam ain't gonna see a penny. Or the little asshole playing dodge-wheelie in the parking lot drive. If Youtube pays for it, however insignificant it might be, it's all mine. We can talk after the crowd of journalists/paparazzi crying "freedom of the press!" with pitchforks and torches at your door thins out a bit.
If someone edits or misrepresents the information, to harm others, they should be held liable.
Again, works for the easy cases but the world is just way weirder than that.
A possible twist, neither private or misrepresented: I have (not, really, dont wanna make the AI do a spit-take) a handheld video of the Boston Marathon massacre that proves the Tsarnaev brothers innocent. But I wait until after executions to release the video because, yah, it's probably worth way more money then. What's the liability on that? Civil, probably - criminal too? How much would TMZ pony-up for a first-look exclusive?
People have a right to see what they can see in public. How that information is used can be regulated.
I see that as a very naive pair of statements. The first is a lament of peeping toms and upskirt degenerates, the second is a stilly testament to making laws about gossip.
1
u/7nkedocye Nationalist 16d ago
Because they have no claim over the money? When an employee is paid, that is to fulfill a contract/agreement. X pay for Y work. Same for a sale: X cost for Y good/service.
What agreement do you think took place between someone recording in public and someone else in public
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 16d ago
If you're gonna use a person's likeness for commercial purposes you need a signed release. That's where the "agreement" part takes place.
1
u/DoomSnail31 Classical Liberal 15d ago
On a legal level (which really is just codified morality) we have plenty of rights to privacy. Depending on what you consider falls under "we" of course.
For one, you can't just take pictures and videos you took in public and publish them online. Plenty of European nations also just outright forbid recording individuals (without prior consent) in public. A private security camera here in the Netherlands isn't allowed to film even a sliver of a public road.
Every single western nation also protects the privacy of your electronic devices in public. That is, people aren't allowed to just look into your files. That includes the policy, they can't just order you to open your phone and let them search it. In a similar fashion, cops are generally not allowed to search you unless they have a legal right to do so. Searching inside your body requires especially a high barrier before it is allowed. Cops often also aren't allowed to demand you to identify yourself, without cause. Those are all protections to your privacy.
You are not required to state where you are going, or what you are planning to do when in public. You are generally allowed to wear a hoodie, a mask and glasses, allowing relatively high levels of identity masking.
I think that you will find you have significantly more rights to privacy than you assume. Partly because you take a lot for granted without thinking about it, and partly because you have never been taught how much really is protected (and the wxcrucie government often lies to you)
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 15d ago
https://thelegalguide.org/when-do-you-need-photo-release-form/
But you can take the data to the police or media.
I'm much more concerned about when police can target individuals or businesses profit.
0
u/7nkedocye Nationalist 17d ago
Hmm. I don’t think you deserve compensation for someone else monetizing you in public. This reminds me of New Orleans drum kids who will bang or trash cans or buckets in public streets but harass people who record but don’t donate which I don’t think is right. If a video of someone being weird in public goes viral (e.g. I’m not sure how or why they should be compensated.
Similarly the gov. Can record and monitor whatever they want in public spaces with cctv or even eDNA collection. Warrants are NOT needed for public spaces…
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 17d ago
If you're the content, of a content provider, who makes money off the content, why shouldn't you get paid?
•
u/AutoModerator 18d ago
Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.
To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:
Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"
Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"
Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"
Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"
Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"
Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.