[daenz]

Thanks for the detailed reply, but I disagree with almost every point that you made. You took the extreme version of "no privacy" with the "America's most stupid" example, so allow me to take the opposite extreme. Imagine every conversation and every form of public interaction going through real-time government censors to decide if it is appropriate. If it's not appropriate (for some subjective definition of 'appropriate'), you're arrested or fined for offense. Sounds dystopian right? I'd much prefer being followed around by a malicious film crew in public all day.

[aqme28]

You’re arguing between two absurd extremes that have nothing to do with reality. Maybe a more grounded analogy would be more convincing?

[withinboredom]

Can you explain your argument better? I don’t follow it. How does requiring consent equate to dystopia?

[livueta]

Well, consider the grandparent's example:

> Note that european style privacy law is differentiated in the finer details: a person who films at a nude beach can claim to do so as a technological extension of their own personal memories and with no intention to publish the material and that is not in violation of privacy laws.

This would be reasonably clear-cut if images were being published on a professional pornography site or whatever, but what happens when the voyeur changes their mind and sends a pic to a friend who never re-shares it?

There are two possibilities here: either the law is unenforceable in cases like these and acts more like a security blanket than any sort of protection to be relied upon, baiting people into a false sense of privacy where they're open for exploitation by creeps - or you've got mandatory on-device image scanning / no E2E / etc, as compromising private communications is required in cases where the material would never hit public services.

Btw, I don't even really see this as a US vs. EU philosophy-of-law thing - the US has plenty of dumb unenforceable laws that do more harm than good as well, but imo does at least get the privacy in public issue roughly correct.

e: downthread, this is at least anecdotally a problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32673402

My uncharitable take is that this is the result of this style of privacy protection's unenforceability problems. If it works so well, why the decline in participation / increase in electronic voyeurism?

[Jon_Lowtek]

i do not agree with the idea that every human right and corresponding laws that are not perfectly and fully enforcable under all circumstances must either lead to an ever increasing trend towards a surveillance state, or be dropped entirely. Both of those are terrible choices. Almost all human rights have some edge case were lack of discoverability prevents enforcement of the laws and prosecution of severe violations. Even murder cases go cold. Does not mean it should be legal.

[withinboredom]

That’s quite a bit of a slippery slope you’ve got there. Intent matters a ton in law. It’s the difference between man-slaughter and murder. It’s the difference between negligence and property damage. Why can’t it also be the difference between recording memories and publishing without consent?

[Jon_Lowtek]

I agree that such a government agency would be dystopian, but not that it is a logical extreme of a consent based right to privacy. Quite the contrary such an agency would be in violation of the right as it spies on all public interactions. Yet I am not surprised you radicalize a negative liberty of freedom from harassment by a malicious film crew, towards an intrusive government agency that ensures their absence. Consider the right to not be subject to violence, which you hopefully agree we have, and tell me, where is my government issued bodyguard ensuring absence of harm 24/7? I can claim a right, demand others limit their actions in respect of it, sue them if they violate it, and likely win, without needing a totalitarian surveillance state. But you can't win trial against a malicious film crew, if you have no right to privacy in the first place.

Let's meet in the middle, at "freedoms end where rights begin". For most interactions this balance is kept not by a government agency, but by the people respecting each others rights. The censor that decide if it is appropriate in real time is not part of some government agency, it is the little voice of moral and reason in your head that says "don't punch him in the face" and, if you get my drift, "don't film at a nude beach". The government steps in after people sue.

I bring the european understanding of a human right to privacy based on consent into this discussion, as a consideration about limiting the right to film, as a counterpoint to your "even creepers have a right to be there and film.", which you made as the devils advocate and which is true, but ignores the creepers disrespect for the right to privacy of those they film. The american interpretation is that humans have no right to privacy in public spaces, at all, that the creepers freedom to film is unrestricted in such a situation because privacy only exists behind closed doors and drawn curtains. This further means the creepers right to sell the content to distributors is unrestricted and their right to edit and frame this material is unrestricted, without any consent of he people filmed, because in an american public space their human right to privacy is non-existent. In the post I answered to, you reinforced this by claiming a person going to a public space makes a statement, implying consent. I reject that. There is a fundamental difference between using the commons and consenting to be exploited. I think the american threshold of where one sides freedom ends and the others sides rights begin in this matter is unfit for postmodern times where cameras have become cheap and omnipresent and publishing of the filmed material turned into a big market.

The american understanding of privacy comes from a time when the discussion was about being seen by neighbors, not about being filmed and published on the internet for millions to gawk at. Had the founding fathers bathing nude in a public lake not only implied that some fellow people present there could see them, but that pictures and videos were being made available on the world wide web, the concept of privacy in the bill of rights may be very different. Times have changed, technology changes possibilities and the evaluation of the freedom to do whatever you want in respect to other peoples rights to not be subject to whatever someone else wants must change with that as well.

As a moral and constitutional framework, i prefer consent based privacy above curtain based privacy.