[godelski]

>> Do Americans not have an expectation of privacy even when talking in public, based on the expectations of the individuals engaged in speech?

> No, they don't, because that would not be a reasonable expectation.

If you asked someone before 2000, do you think their answer would be different?

Would setting/context change that? i.e. a person talking to their friend on the street vs giving a speech at a protest/demonstration?

I think before you call reference to Ben Franklin, you have to also consider the differences in settings between today and then. A lot has changed and the discourse around the subject is not properly taking this into account, and often not even acknowledging the existence of change in the first place. "Reasonable expectation" is deeply contingent upon the availability, accessibility, and utility. This cannot be an ignored part of the conversation.

[ameister14]

>If you asked someone before 2000, do you think their answer would be different

No, I don't. I do not think reasonable people ever had an expectation of privacy while in public, especially when they are interacting with other people/strangers.

>Would setting/context change that? i.e. a person talking to their friend on the street vs giving a speech at a protest/demonstration?

Setting and context could change the expectation of privacy, sure - if you're in a private place, it's different from being in public.

>I think before you call reference to Ben Franklin, you have to also consider the differences in settings between today and then. A lot has changed and the discourse around the subject is not properly taking this into account, and often not even acknowledging the existence of change in the first place.

Are you saying people have more of an expectation of privacy now? I thought your whole argument went the other way.

[godelski]

> No, I don't. I do not think reasonable people ever had an expectation of privacy while in public, especially when they are interacting with other people/strangers.

Yeah, I don't buy that. Let me be quite specific: do you think someone would answer the following question differently "what is the likelihood that you will be on camera if you walk to the library and back?" I absolutely guarantee the numbers will change and approach 0 pretty rapidly. This is not just a psychological question (which does matter too btw) but a technological one. Clearly Ben Franklin would have answered that he would not expect such a thing despite being a person of high fame in his time.

> Setting and context could change the expectation of privacy, sure - if you're in a private place, it's different from being in public.

Except that this isn't a binary option. A public bathroom is a public space yet I think most people would be hard pressed to argue that you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy there, especially in a stall. In fact, this is even legally codified. There's a spectrum of private-public and it is not clean cut. What I've suggested above is that there are variables you aren't considering. A person's model on the expectation of privacy is dependent not just on their condition of public/private property, but also on their expectation of people having recording devices, the expectation of that use, the expectation of ability to notice them, as well as other more refined setting attributes like doors, locks, and other such things. It is far more nuanced than "inside vs outside." As another clear example, I have a higher expectation of privacy being in the middle of a national forest than if I lived in a apartment on the first floor in a big city. Obviously there are more conditions and we can't have a reasonable conversation without recognizing this.

> Are you saying people have more of an expectation of privacy now?

Obviously not. Reread. "availability, accessibility, and utility" is referring to recording devices and the ability to search through them. Additionally, your analogy doesn't even make sense since a lot of investigative journalism does "spy" on people in private settings (e.g. source information from a dissenting party about a conversation that happened in a private room on private property). Again, way more nuanced than you are giving credit for.

[ameister14]

>Yeah, I don't buy that. Let me be quite specific: do you think someone would answer the following question differently "what is the likelihood that you will be on camera if you walk to the library and back?"

They'd probably answer that differently, same as if you asked them about someone filming them on their cell phone or any other technological change. That doesn't have much to do with your earlier question, though.

> There's a spectrum of private-public and it is not clean cut.

Sure, there is a spectrum, based on community norms. There is a degree of privacy you expect in a bathroom, and it is greater than the degree you expect at your table in a restaurant. I wouldn't describe being in a bathroom as being 'in public' though.

>Obviously not. Reread.

I think you should read the last paragraph you wrote on the comment I replied to. It was completely unclear. You were replying to a statement that even in Ben Franklin's time there was no expectation of privacy in public. You did not refute this, essentially saying 'times have changed, you're not considering how things have changed.' Logically, that means that there is now an expectation of privacy in public.

[godelski]

> That doesn't have much to do with your earlier question, though.

It has everything to do with the question. Being recorded is a different level of privacy invasion than being seen.

> I wouldn't describe being in a bathroom as being 'in public' though.

And thus why you can't assert that your definition is absolute. If people are disagreeing and you admit community norms differ, then you can't have an objective reference and that's my main point.

[ameister14]

>Being recorded is a different level of privacy invasion than being seen.

Why do you think I used the newspaper-man example? Being recorded in text has happened for a long time.

>you can't assert that your definition is absolute. If people are disagreeing and you admit community norms differ, then you can't have an objective reference and that's my main point.

I never asserted that my definition was absolute. I applied the spectrum to your examples. A 'reasonable person' standard is not an arbitrary bright-line rule, it's representative of the community and what their idea of a reasonably prudent person's expectations and behavior are.

[godelski]

> Why do you think I used the newspaper-man example?

And a voice recording is even more reliable and convincing but hasn't existed for "a long time." A camera is even more so. Today's state is not equivalent to a written record. Basically take your newspaper-man, make them better, and make a lot more of them. Your argument is failing to convince me not because I haven't understood your argument, it is failing because the assumptions being made are shaky. I will not buy a claim that anyone honestly believes that a random person telling their friend about something they overheard is equivalent to that same person showing their friend an audio recording or a video.

This is what I have been consistently claiming and saying is a critical aspect where you keep just saying that people have memories. These are not the same, and it is not remotely reasonable to say that they are the same. And if this were all that mattered, then you'd have a reasonable expectation of privacy were you to walk around a non-metropolitan city late at night while everyone else sleeps, simply due to you having a reasonable expectation of everyone being asleep. If you want to be convincing, dig into the complexity and connections that are related to your argument. Think about the factors that interplay and through what mechanisms. Specifically look at how these variables changed over time (taking into account prevalence and utility). Honestly, I don't think you can do this without coming to a very different conclusion. You're lacking sufficient complexity to account for the relevant data. It is fine to start simple, but you gotta add complexity to make strong conclusions. Ignoring the difference between cameras and newspapers isn't helping.