[dheera]

Stepping aside from legality, and speaking purely from ethics, there's a big difference between "hiring someone to provide a service for your own private home" and "renting out a temporary place of residence for someone".

Ethically speaking I'd say it's completely okay to monitor the former, whether that service is a plumber or a babysitter, and whether the monitoring is done with a camera or your own human eyes. Those service personnel shouldn't be expecting privacy while they provide services, anyway.

Ethically speaking I'd say it's wrong and a violation of privacy to monitor the latter, regardless of whether it is done with camera or eyes, without prior warning. This is because providing a place of residence implies providing some level of privacy. Forget cameras, you shouldn't generally enter a tenant's place of residence even with your human eyes, without letting them know in advance (e.g. at the very least by knocking).

[the-dude]

> Those service personnel shouldn't be expecting privacy while they provide services, anyway.

Jeez. Not sure how to respond. I think for me it is not 'complete okay' to waiver your privacy whenever you provide paid services to some overlord.

[Dylan16807]

Do you expect privacy in the workplace?

Do you expect privacy when you're in a shopping mall?

You're in a building controlled by someone else, no renting going on. What is your rule for when privacy is expected?

[the-dude]

> Do you expect privacy in the workplace?

Yes. And I am in the position to demand it, or take another position. So we get a privacy divide within society: cleaners, waiters etc don't have an expectation of privacy, those higher up do.

> Do you expect privacy when you're in a shopping mall?

No, everybody can walk in and out at any time.

> You're in a building controlled by someone else, no renting going on. What is your rule for when privacy is expected?

Well, you have touched upon that yourself in your previous question: if a place is open to public you can not expect privacy obviously. When you are in a private place, the default should be to expect privacy unless explicity noticed otherwise.

I feel like you are actually advocating some 1984 here on freakin' HN!

[dheera]

You're a plumber in my house. I feel like I fully have the right to watch you as you repair my plumbing. You're a babysitter in my house. Babysitting my hypothetical baby. I feel like I would have the right to watch over that baby's treatment in someone else's hands. If you aren't going to let me watch over the quality of your services, I would just find someone else to provide those services.

At some point, once we have established a degree of trust, I would probably watch over you less and less. This is quality control, not a privacy violation.

I do agree that within a single organization, such as a software company, employees need to have some level of privacy from each other in order to work efficiently and happily. That is also facilitated by an environment of mutual trust established by the company itself. That's a very different situation from an individual contracting the services of another individual, who are not a priori related to each other.

[the-dude]

> I feel like I fully have the right to watch you as you repair my plumbing.

If you are present: yes.

I just realized the fight against surveillance is not particular with the NSA/GHQC and or the government.

It will be a fight within.

[viraptor]

I feel like this is a completely different area though. Would you ever rent services from someone saying: "I'll do the work in your house, but you can't look" ? I get the general idea of "I don't waive my right for privacy when I enter someone's house", but for work I just don't see any use case.

If I can't see what you're doing in my house, you're not working in my house. What's the reason I'd ever want/need the opposite?

[cillian64]

It's awfully easy to forget how one's circles aren't representative of most people. I think the general public are a lot more worried about terrorism and whatnot than they are about surveillance. Bashing the surveillance services is not a vote-winner.

[Dylan16807]

I'm not advocating anything. Also note that I might take issue with cameras even in areas where I don't expect to have privacy.

In what way do those 'higher up' have privacy? Even a CEO is commonly able to be monitored by HR.

[the-dude]

The CEO has it's own office. He can close the door. If he wants, there will be no surveillance.

He even has an employee hired to protect his privacy: his secretary, which sits in front of this door. 'No sorry, mister Buffet is not in right now'.

The cleaner, the factory worker etc has to work in public places an thus can ben surveilled 100% of the time?

> I'm not advocating anything

You are at least condoning surveillance of everything that is under YOUR control. 'My property', 'I am paying for this'. Expressing your opinion like this in this context can only be explained as advocacy.

[Dylan16807]

>You are at least condoning surveillance of everything that is under YOUR control. 'My property', 'I am paying for this'.

Those are not words I said.

I just wanted to know how you drew the line.

Which has helped me understand you better. I think you define the word 'privacy' differently than I do. I am against surveillance in many areas where I do not expect 'privacy'. You also draw a similar distinction, where you're okay with someone physically watching a plumber but not setting up a camera.

[djhn]

> Even a CEO is commonly able to be monitored by HR.

What do you consider "being monitored" in this context? The CEO answers to the board. Would I be naive in assuming the CEO is so far above HR and IT that monitoring him wouldn't be within their jurisdiction without the board requesting something specifically behind the CEO's back?

[morgante]

> Yes. And I am in the position to demand it, or take another position.

Really? I'm a software engineer and I certainly don't expect my employer to not look at me when I'm working.

Most people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy at their office, including "higher ups."

[DanBC]

> Do you expect privacy in the workplace?

Somewhat, yes. Benefits of being a European, I guess.

[userbinator]

I'd say that if you're renting to someone else, it's still your property so you should be free to monitor it, but not disclosing the presence of cameras or other monitoring devices should be illegal.

[17760704]

Ownership is a bundle of rights. In the U.S., if you have rented out a property you "own" to another person, you do not have the right to enter that property without prior notice or consent of that person.

[dheera]

Again, legality aside, even if it were legal, I'd say it's unethical to do so without consent or at the very least, prior notice.