| >People have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own home. AFAIK that "expectation of privacy" doesn't include things that you can see from the street. >In addition, the right to privacy is not limited by arbitrary definitions of shamefulness. What makes you think I suggested otherwise? I suggest you read more carefully next time. Obviously the "shameful" part was added to make an example. The "that's on you" won't make any sense if it was a innocuous activity, eg. watching TV. >That’s a whataboutism logical fallacy. Just because some people do it and get away with it doesn’t make it acceptable. it's not a whataboutism fallacy because the fact that it happens on a frequent basis and doesn't provoke action from law enforcement suggests that it is acceptable, at least from a legal point of view. I suppose you could claim that people being annoyed at them makes it unacceptable from a social/moral point of view, but I'm still skeptical whether that has any implications from a privacy point of view. People are annoyed because it disturbs them, not because of the privacy implications. Furthermore, there are many ways of determining whether someone's home that doesn't involve knocking on doors, eg. checking whether the lights are on, or the cars on the driveway. >That’s kind of a straw man IMO. No, it's not. It's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum. A strawman is when you replace your opponents argument with a false one. I fail to see how I did that. There's nothing in that paragraph that suggests that "going around and recording the coordinates of every street address" is something that you proposed. You really need to lay off responding to everything with "fallacy", even when it isn't. >An IP address is public information and is transmitted by every IP packet. This seems baffling to me. Your IP address should get additional privacy protections because it's public? >You can’t compare it to someone’s home address which is normally private by default. Given how much I buy stuff online, it's not "private" by any means. >By associating a location with an IP address, you are effectively transmitting your location with every IP packet. 1. the location is very coarse. Realistically speaking it's accurate down to the city you're in. 2. you realize that's how phone numbers worked, at least one or two decades ago? it has almost the same properties. It's transmitted with every call (caller ID) and it's vaguely correlated with your neighborhood (the middle 3 digits are the central office code). should we ban databases of central office code locations as well? |