[alexqgb]

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.

[diminoten]

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?

[alexqgb]

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.

[diminoten]

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...

[alexqgb]

"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.

[diminoten]

> That is just so unbelievably wrong.

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.

[alexqgb]

I have no interest in "proving" anything to anyone brainless enough enough to make sweeping assertions that categorically deny the very existence of something - without even spending the 30-40 seconds on Google needed to verify the truth of what he's saying. I mean, that's some weapons-grade stupidity right there.

But if you're truly interested in the subject, and are willing to do a very very small amount of work to educate yourself, you can try to guess who I'm thinking of. I'll let you know if you get it right. Bonus points for identifying one key concept this person popularized. It's one that routinely comes up in the conversations about surveillance and social control that are happening all over the place these days, so unless your ignorance is absolute, you should recognize it when you see it.

Good luck, Sport.

[jack-r-abbit]

> 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.)

[alexqgb]

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.

[jack-r-abbit]

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.

[alexqgb]

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.

http://suite101.com/a/stalking-law-a29952

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.