[moutarde]

> Why is that horseshit?

Because historically (and also legally) the bounds between what is private and public have been defined by what was plausible at the time, not by what was hypothetically possible.

We know live in a world were what used to a be a hypothetical dream (or science fiction novel) has now become the mundane. The law can either adapt (via judicial rulings), be changed by voters or become an absurd anachronism that's good for nothing but justifying invasive surveillance.

[diminoten]

History and legality are not relevant morally.

It's morally wrong to try and stop me from automatically recording the license plates of the people who drive by my house.

[Amadou]

FWIW, it is legal to record wireless transmissions like cellphone calls. It is illegal to pass copies of those recordings on to other people. At least in the USA.

[maxerickson]

But you recording by your house isn't that interesting.

It is more complicated when you start talking about whether you should sell derivations of those recordings or someone aggregating the recordings made by many people.

[diminoten]

It's not much more complicated. If I own properties throughout the city, and at each of those properties I record every license plate that drives by, I'm well within my rights to not only do that, but to aggregate that data and supply it to others if they ask.

It's the exact same thing as CCTV, fundamentally. How can you construct an argument that prevents me from doing this without preventing many things we already are okay with?

[maxerickson]

Legally, probably. Your final question sets a bad standard, present day societal approval is only weak evidence (that is, lots of heinous shit has been normative in various historical periods).

There is also the problem where you are talking about morality as if it is clear cut and all settled.

Anyway, I'm pretty well in favor of trying to find a meaningful definition of a space that exists between public and private, where shared space activities are not just a free for all. Mostly, because I think I would/will be more comfortable in shared spaces if I can expect that other people will mostly have some respect for my wish to not be followed around with technology.

(I would argue this space exists, it's plenty easy to irritate someone by 'getting in their face' in public. This is them expressing strident disapproval of your behavior...)

[diminoten]

What is that argument, specifically? So far all I've heard is "this is wrong", not "this is wrong because of x".

The only point anyone's been able to make is that it could possibly be abused, but frankly, everything the government can do can be abused. You'll need more than "it could be abused" to argue against it.

[maxerickson]

I'm arguing that it makes me uncomfortable and that this discomfort will be widely shared. Go ahead and disagree that morality is something different than that if you want. You are also welcome to think that is weak sauce (but then go ahead and make a habit of making strangers uncomfortable in public and see how that serves you).

[gress]

It's also morally wrong to combine a bunch of said recordings to virtually stalk someone.

[diminoten]

Why?

[gress]

For the same reason it's morally wrong to stop you from making the recordings in the first place.

[diminoten]

And what reason is that?

[gress]

Do you not have a reason?