[jMyles]

Reading into the details of these kinds of "privacy implications" (particularly the desire to force publication delay and the force blurring of people or license plates), I'm left thinking that the "implications" are more stark for freedom than they are for privacy.

Are there really privacy implications of any sort in publishing a series of photos of people and cars on a street that aren't already implicated by the knowledge that Google and / or the NSA already have far better photos of the same scenes?

On a more fundamental level: isn't publishing, in real time and high quality, a photo (or series of photos) of a public area essentially for freedom of the press? And doesn't the insertion of a "privacy" claim that threaten that freedom?

I know it's specifically enshrined in the US Constitution, but in an age of ubiquitous cameras and publication media, it's equally important in Australia and around the world, no?

We can opt either to allow each other to share our eyes and ears unto infinity, putting criminals and power brokers on notice that their actions in public are preserved for all time, or we can decide to close and cover them, leaving only criminals and power brokers to see and hear.

[Silhouette]

It's certainly not an easy issue, but it's important to remember that privacy isn't a black and white issue either.

There is a difference between one photograph of one place at one time and a systematic collection of photographs of many places or over an extended period of time.

There is a difference between a single photograph taken by a private individual for their own use and a photograph taken by a powerful organisation to go into a large database of similar photographs.

There is a difference between a photograph taken for personal or in-house use and a photograph that will be shared with others or openly republished for anyone to see.

In all of these cases, the photograph itself may be the same, but the implications for privacy/anonymity are quite different. Once you start running computer vision algorithms on the photograph and correlating the results with other data sources, the implications go much further still.

[Symbiote]

> We can opt either ... or

Or, we can have a compromise, since the world isn't black and white, and we needn't restrict ourselves to a binary choice.

That's how the European rights work, on life, expression (speech), privacy and so on.

[hx87]

Everyone compromises--it's just that Europe tends to err on the side of privacy, whereas the US usually errs on the side of freedom. From my American point of view though, Europe seems a lot more eager to "export" its preferences abroad through legal means.

[icebraining]

Europe seems a lot more eager to "export" its preferences abroad through legal means.

What do you mean?

[hx87]

I was a bit too broad--by "Europe" I meant France, as when French courts tried to apply the Right to be Forgotten principle to information about French citizens that was stored outside of Europe.

[wyager]

And that's worked great, with Merkel prosecuting a comedian for insulting Ergodan or Germany engaging in the political imprisonment of non-violent radicals.

While there are many problems with the USA, its legal protections of e.g. freedom of expression are vastly superior to those found in European nations.

[jMyles]

With most things, I agree, but I'm not sure I see any middle ground here. Can you publish a picture taken in public, even if it includes faces and license plates, or not? This does seem binary to me.

[xyzzy123]

Big public projects can have policies which minimise negative externalities.

You can still privately publish any photo you like, within the bounds of the law.

There is lots of middle ground. "Legally you can, but morally, should you?"

Time series get interesting.

If it comes to actual law and courts, it's definitely context dependent. Intent matters a lot. Surf cam is more OK than "revenge cam" of ex's house. Yes that means humans ascribe morality to certain arrangements of bits (and how the bits are evaluated is affected by who they were created by, and why). No, publishing and freedom of speech are not absolute but depend on purpose and intent.

To put it another way, technically child pornography is just a time series of pictures right?

[jMyles]

> child pornography is just a time series of pictures right?

But presumably it's not the capturing of the photons that is criminal in the case of child pornography. Even if you used a fake camera, it's still illegal, right?

[colejohnson66]

I'd assume that's just child exploitation/molestation, not pornography. But that's just me.

[jMyles]

Right right.

Well, then, I suppose what I'm saying is: in an information-age society, it's the child exploitation/molestation that's properly a crime; capturing the same as a piece of media is no modifier.

[detaro]

Why does that have to be binary and can not depend on the circumstances? There are conflicting interests and rights. Invoking one violates others, so a balance has to be found. A blanket yes/no is either banning something because it could violate some other right, or allowing senseless violation of some right just because there are situations where that could be justified.

Rights are weighted against each other all the time, why should e.g. freedom of press be any different in this case?

Re your elites argument, right now "normal people" are generally awarded more protections than important figures, although the latter have more resources available to try nevertheless. They'll still have those resources, and normal people still won't have them, if you remove protections.

[moefogs]

1) It is naive, at best, to believe that the wholesale destruction of privacy for individuals will also mean the wholesale destruction of privacy for elites. This simply won't happen.

2) Privacy is not a binary state. The crux of your argument is that since I do not have privacy from the NSA, then I should not have privacy from any individuals. I don't mind if you want to give up yours, but I like mine. Please do not subject me to your tyranny.

3) Your Constitutional hand-wringing ignores a lot of reality, including (but not limited to) the fact that Constitutional law isn't as simple as you think it is, and that if your best argument is that people who never conceived of mass photography and image recognition didn't take a stand against it, well... that's silly.

4) Your conclusions are precisely backwards. If we start making the locations of all cars perfectly public, of all people public etc, we won't have more freedom. We'll have an inescapable tyranny.

This is not an easy problem to solve. But your proposed solution is only fine for people whose actions are neatly aligned with current and future cultural norms as well as the preferences of current and future elites. Cheap widespread surveillance (which will happen otherwise) will be absolutely devastating to enemies of the state, it will be horrible for "unusual" people generally, and it will be FANTASTIC for elites.

[maxerickson]

The US constitution doesn't say much about privacy.

The 4th amendment restricts the government from doing things that would (in part) violate privacy of individuals, but it doesn't say much about what other citizens can do in public places.

[colejohnson66]

You're right about the Consitution. However, the law isn't restricted to the Legislative Branch. Case law is law too, and the courts have ruled repeatedly that you have no expectation of privacy in public.

[brudgers]

My impression based on the title of the blog site and the domain is that the author is in Australia. That doesn't change anything about who has and does not have access to original images. However, it does provide a different context for legal analysis.