Can we just not go there? There is a qualitative difference between "being in public" and "being recorded while in public" and "being recorded in public over an extended period of time."
You take a picture on the beach and catch me in the frame, I'm totally fine with that, you take pictures of that beach every day for a year and then put IDs on every 'face' so that you've got a history of everyone who has been to the beach, I'm much less comfortable with that, you create an API so that someone can send you a picture of a face and you will give them the history of that face at the beach for the last 12 months, I've got a huge problem with that.
FYI: You where just trolled. Sure, it feels go to respond, but it's also a waste of everyone's time to read a troll and the responses. It also promotes them making more comments like that.
What kind of stuff do you buy at stores? Mind if I have a look? I mean, you're in public when you buy the stuff. Please post your checking account and credit card statements in the reply. Thanks.
I'll gladly tell you whenever I buy things. My checking account and credit card statements are private, however (this isn't an argument against privacy, don't mistake it as such).
If you want more, come follow me around a bit. You wouldn't be breaking any law, after all. The fact that I go to potbelly each day, have a Gold's Gym subscription, and went to 3 bars over the last few days isn't private. None of it.
I value privacy, but I also know I don't always have it.
Right. Because some computer somewhere knowing that yesterday I drove 90mph on the I-5 from LA to San Diego is exactly the same as you knowing my credit card number. Got it.
Oh, is that all. The CC statement is not very detailed. From the last two months, you'll see several deliveries from Mountain Mikes Pizza, some various (non-descript) charges at Amazon ranging from a few dollars (music) to a few hundred dollars (bought a smoker), my $7.99 NetFlix sub, my bi-weekly delivery of organic fruits/veggies from a "local" farm (Farm Fresh To You), the equipment protection plan for my phone, the Veritas Instrument rental for my kid, ~5k in car repair last month at Volkswagen, monthly membership to City Beach, my web hosting bill (Rochen Host), DVD rental from RedBox, a donation to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, I stopped at a local pub (The Hopyard) for a couple pints and I reloaded my BART card.
Don't be a idiot. You should know as well as anyone that simply "being in public" actually preserves a large amount of privacy and anonymity. Consider, for, instance, what would happen if any of the countless people you pass by daily decided to follow your every step, stalking you, recording everything you say and do, waiting for you in the street when you got home, then relentlessly pursuing you again when you leave.
You'd have the person arrested for harassment.
In a functioning democracy, it's not the thickness of the doors that prevents them from being kicked in, but the strength of the laws that restrains those who would do the kicking. Likewise, the "reasonable expectation of privacy" is not limited to the narrow range of situations in which violations are physically impossible, but the much broader range of situations in which violations are corrosive enough to be socially and politically unacceptable.
Legally? No, there's no such idea as, "anonymous in public", and no, someone recording you in public isn't harassment. Ask celebrities. The paparazzi get in trouble when they enter into private spaces, but public spaces? Fair game. Always.
And what exactly is your moral argument against it? That your public movements would incriminate you somehow? That's a slippery slope argument - there's no connection between tracking your movements and necessarily indicting you for breaking some law. Besides, if you break a law in public, what the fuck were you thinking?
The moral arguments against it are profound: put simply human liberty and constant mass surveillance are mutually incompatible.
There is a deep and rich body of literature, philosophy, research, and direct human experience to back this up. I am truly sorry that you appear to be completely unfamiliar with any of it. If you have a sincere interest in the subject, you can start with the most widely recognized point of reference: George Orwell's "1984".
Also, regarding celebrities and their suffering at the hands of paparazzi. This is something of a special case, and hardly a situation that reflects the broad sweep of common law. But even here, there's recognition that something really awful and abusive is going on. California has already taken steps to curb the worst of it in ways that conform with existing laws and constitutional protections for the press. Meanwhile, celebrities themselves have taken to hiring PI's, who document the frequently-illegal abuses they're subjected to, and turning over their findings to the police.
1984 is a work of fiction and has no bearable application on the world of today, and furthermore there is no philosophical literature dealing with being monitored while in PUBLIC. This isn't about privacy when you're in a place no one else is, this is about how incredibly naive it is to think when you're in public, no one's allowed to look at you.
Do not transform this into a privacy debate, because I'm not saying you don't deserve privacy. Don't ruin this discussion by getting all fanatical on me...
"this is about how incredibly naive it is to think when you're in public, no one's allowed to look at you."
That is...not even remotely close to what I, or anyone else on this thread has said. This was about the malign effects relentless surveillance and stalking, not people glancing in your direction as you walk down the street. And you can't possibly be serious when you say "there is no philosophical literature dealing with being monitored while in PUBLIC." That is just so unbelievably wrong.
I realize I shouldn't get upset about stupid online comments, but every now and then you encounter one that is so unfathomably ignorant that your jaw just drops. And you, sir, have left me flabbergasted.
This is easy to prove. Show me which philosopher tackled mass public surveillance.
And it is exactly what you and everyone else in this thread has said. A surveillance program designed to collect information on you that's already public is not legally or morally wrong. Besides, you already agreed to it! When you GET a license plate, you're EXPLICITLY agreeing that you can be tracked. That's the whole damned point of the license plate.
You don't have a right to privacy while in public, and that extends to recording your movements in public. Get over it, because that's how it will be forever.
> what would happen if any of the countless people you pass by daily decided to follow your every step, stalking you, recording everything you say and do, waiting for you in the street when you got home, then relentlessly pursuing you again when you leave.
I'm pretty sure what you just described there is exactly what paparazzi do. I don't believe any have been arrested for doing that. (Mind you, if they do get arrested, it is usually for something else.)
That's very much a special case, and one that effects a microscopic portion of the population. Were that level of harassment to become part of daily life as lived by millions, the presently tentative efforts to rein them legally in would become very serious, very quickly.
But that isn't a special case because of law. It is only special because only a microscopic portion of the population is that popular with the rest of the population. People don't do this to me because no one is buying those pictures and putting them in magazines... not because some laws give me extra privacy.
You asked what would happen. The answer is the same for me as it is for Jay-Z or Tom Hanks: Nothing.
That was actually my point, the law hasn't responded to paparazzi in a major way because they effect so few people. Or rather, it hadn't responded until relatively recently. California has found that the swarms are so big, and behave with such reckless disregard for public safety (high-speed chases on freeways are as especially sore point) that they've started to drop the hammer on these fuckers, passing legislation to curb the worst abuses.
Putting this special case aside, if you were to stalk someone in ways that many 'regular' people are actually exposed to, you'd find yourself face to face with a more fully developed - and far more serious - body of legislation.
The larger point is that a few people suffering the paps are not a threat to the republic. But if everyone had cause to live their lives in the fearful, guarded, anxious way that a lot of stars actually live (minus the giant paychecks, of course) then it's likely that society really would break down, and we'd see that "the reasonable expectation of privacy" isn't determined by what's technically possible at any given time, but what's psychologically necessary for people to function in and as a democracy.
Interesting question. However, I think you've got it backwards. What right does the government have to track individuals? That's what we should be asking.
It's not a right, but a desire and a desire that can be realized with simple planning. Is there some reason a person shouldn't implement methods that limit exposure?
What is the parent post genuinely concerned about?
For myself, nothing. I have to say I lead a rather mundane life.
My objection is not for myself, it's for others. I don't want reporters tracked. I don't want whistleblowers tracked. I don't want government employees to feel threatened they may lose their jobs because they have a private life. For those people to be safe we all have to be protected from government tracking.
Sorry, accidental downvote. I meant to upvote since you nailed it: I want privacy norms to be respected not because I have anything in particular to hide, but because I want people who can advance my general interests as a citizen to be able to do so safely.
I am acutely aware that doing so demands adversarial relationships with powers that can be concentrated, lawless, and malign. The risks faced by people challenging them are real. They deserve all the protection they can get.
This isn't an argument against privacy, this is an argument against absolute privacy.
You're not private all the time. Stop pretending like you are, it just doesn't mesh with reality. I can fucking see you walk into that night club, you did that in full view of the whole world.
Your argument is similar to the "why are you scared if you've got nothing to hide?" response to the NSA scandal. According to society, we all should be perfect citizens whose outward lives perfectly reflect our inward, private thoughts and actions. But we're not, and evidence to the contrary can be used against us.
But, for the sake of argument, let's say you are perfect. You don't exceed the speed limit, you don't haul drugs. But one of your elected officials really enjoys visiting his secret girlfriend on Sunday evenings. Do you still trust him to vote objectively in every circumstance?
True, I can't see XYZ agency using their records to threaten elected officials, either. But I doubt anyone was worried that promoting an egotistical bureaucrat in the Bureau of Investigation in the early 1900s would ever lead to the reign of J. Edgar Hoover. The whole point is that these things aren't a big deal on their own -- it's the slippery slope concept that should concern you.
This isn't a privacy argument, you already (should) have privacy in the situations where you're not around other people or out in the open.
This is about the times when you're out on the street with everybody else. That's when you can't reasonably expect EVERYONE TO LOOK AWAY when you walk into a store, or buy a coffee or throw your trash on the ground.
It's those times when you're not private. You know, in public.
These things aren't legally protected because our cultural and instinctive expectations forbid them. Try walking down the street and looking every single person you pass directly in the eye for as long as they're visible. See how they react. Follow them around. Write down everything they're doing. Let us all know what happens.
You take a picture on the beach and catch me in the frame, I'm totally fine with that, you take pictures of that beach every day for a year and then put IDs on every 'face' so that you've got a history of everyone who has been to the beach, I'm much less comfortable with that, you create an API so that someone can send you a picture of a face and you will give them the history of that face at the beach for the last 12 months, I've got a huge problem with that.