[riedel]

Just out of curiosity: doesn't the US have any laws against private surveillance of public spaces? As a European I find this quite irritating (not saying we do not have problems as well with more and more cams installed and risks related to an increasing number of e.g. parking lot cams)

[MikeTheGreat]

I'm not a lawyer and I think this varies state by state, but I think that in general anyone is allowed to record in public spaces.

I think the general idea is that if you could (legally) go stand in that public space (sidewalks, roads, parks) and watch something happen then you're allowed to record what you see.

This is probably good - I think it's the basis of being able to record misbehavior (by private citizens and/or the police), for example.

In contrast you're generally not allowed to record stuff happening in a private space unless everyone's been informed that this will happen.

This is why you'll see signs saying "Warning - this place is under surveillance" signs on every single door going into a corporation that wants to use security cameras.

[stackskipton]

You are allowed to record stuff happening in private spaces depending on the situation and state you are in.

For example, you could photograph or record the dance floor in nightclub since dance floor is very public. However, the bathroom would not be allowed. Of course, the venue could make up rules and eject you for doing so.

Most of "Warning signs" are deterrence, maybe someone will behave better if they know cameras are watching. Also, it's cheap insurance dictate by the lawyers who think "Signs are 100 bucks total but someone filing privacy lawsuit is thousands, put up the signs."

[MikeTheGreat]

"You are allowed to record stuff happening in private spaces depending on the situation and state you are in."

The part about "depending on the situation and state you are in." is doing _a_lot_ of work there. Here in WA state, for example, if you go into a private meeting and record the thing without getting folks consent first then you're guilty of a misdemeanor.

Another example: in my old neighbor we had a nuisance neighbor who we all thought was engaged in Crimes, Plural. The immediate neighbor wanted to put up a video camera to catch them in the act but was told that they can't film the neighbor's yard directly. Filming their own yard and the field of view happens to catch something in the adjacent yard might get by a judge, maybe. So even if you can stand on the sidewalk and see past the trees into someone's backyard that doesn't mean you can film it.

(To be clear - I think this probably a good rule. I don't want folks filming me in my backyard :) )

Clearly, the tl;dr is that if this really matters to someone then they should check with a lawyer first.

[riedel]

In Germany we have the concept of informational self-determination for a long time, so that I am not able to follow those scaling laws easily. The problem is not the single image or video (which can be legal), but the extension over space and time. This creates a situation where you can create information profiles. I as a subject have the right to control this information (actually the same goes for the pure online stuff).

[alex43578]

No, you don’t have an expectation of privacy on a public roadway, public parking lot, etc.

[bluefirebrand]

This norm around privacy was kinda set before the concept of mass surveillance became a thing, though. Maybe we should revisit it and rethink what privacy means.

People shouldn't expect privacy in public, sure. They should expect they may be overheard or witnessed. But that's not really equivalent to mass surveillance and long-term recording

"You should not expect privacy in public" does not imply "you should expect no privacy and you should expect everything you do is recorded and stored forever"

[alex43578]

I don’t see why you should expect any privacy in the middle of a public road. What are you doing there that is private?

I think everyone’s threat model is severely miscalibrated if they are threatened by being recorded driving somewhere via Flock, yet use a phone or social media account. There’s way more meaningful threats to actual private matters than Flock.

[bluefirebrand]

People tracking your in-person movements and behaviors is way more threatening than people tracking your online behaviors

You are seriously clueless if you think otherwise

[alex43578]

The police observing your car driving down a road is not threatening, and acting as if it is is hysteria.

Furthermore, if you’re worried about that, have you considered that “they” could get even more comprehensive tracking data just by requesting it from a data-broker? There’s no divide between the online and real world if you have a phone or an online presence.

[mistercheph]

> The police observing your car driving down a road is not threatening, and acting as if it is is hysteria.

Yeah, but a national license plate surveillance system that lets a single police officer observe all of the movements you and your family members make every day for the past few years is not a single police officer making a plainview observation of you driving down the road.

And it's clearly a power that threatens liberties, you cannot have a free society when a government has that power.

"Palantir, what are the names and home addresses of all of the people that were at the pro-Mamdani rally, show me places that many of them go to in common, I want to find where these criminals are having their secret meetings."

Probably not in voice-to-text form, but this power is already in the hands of some US agencies, in part thanks to the national ALPR system.

[bluefirebrand]

> There’s no divide between the online and real world

The divide is that someone can't murder you by knowing your online activity

[_DeadFred_]

I miss the old style small government conservatives that understood the threat that mass surveillance is.