this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
467 points (96.4% liked)
Technology
59414 readers
3115 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I am going to repeat myself forever it seems. We got it wrong when we decided that you only have privacy when someone can't physically see what you are up to. Nothing else is treated this way. You are not allowed to drive as fast as your car can physically move. You are not allowed to go into anything locked as long as you are able to pick it. You are not allowed to steal whatever you want as long as no one tackles you for it. And yet somehow some way it became understood that merely because someone can get a photo of you they have the legal right to do so.
As if access to better technology means you should follow less moral rules vs the opposite. Someone with a junk camera of the 80s can do far less perving compared to the new cameras+drones out there.
What jurisdiction is this true? There are certainly times that there is an expectation of privacy and getting a photo of you would be illegal. Easy example: and owner of a store can't photo you in the dressing room, the even tho they could put a camera in there. It's the same thing here, there is an expectation of privacy in your home (or for many enclosed and private spaces), so this kind of "picture" would likely already be a violation.
Just about all of them where the government is spying on their residents. Unless you think it's alright if the government does it?
The poster made the claim:
And now you're talking about the government spying. Total non sequitur that has nothing to do with what I was discussing.
The posters claim goes a bit further than just "can get a photo of you". The poster originally mentions (and it's integral to the point) that privacy shouldn't be predicated on the idea that so long as you are behind closed doors (ie not in view) you have the expectation of privacy. You deliberately narrowed the scope. But please understand that technically my car and the contents thereof are covered by a right to privacy. To search my car lawfully in the US you'd require a warrant. Doesn't matter if my car is parked on the street. But you could lawfully take a photo of me in that car pretty much anywhere in "public" and that would also be considered lawful. So, what exactly is the demarcation? Where is the line drawn and doesn't that seem rather arbitrary?
The context of the poster you responded to's point is that the government decides and makes a line between what is private and what isn't. And that's further defined and enforced by laws. When you take into account the number of tools governments the world over have developed to spy on their citizens and just how many of those are then made available to or leaked to the public, and further that some of them being used in public are perfectly legal that poster has a point. We did not draw the line in the sand the right way.
The poster said nothing about the state. They were talking about privacy. They gave a long list of things that we aren't allowed to do even if we are "able" to do them, and then made the false claim that we are allowed to take pictures "just because we can." Maybe they have beliefs about the line being in the wrong place for other things, but this submission is about a type of picture, and the poster specifically mentioned taking pictures. So me talking about picture makes perfect sense, bringing in the state searching your car makes next to zero sense.
The poster said absolutely zero about the state. None. Zilch. Zip. When you accused me of narrowing the scope, you were actually projecting your expansion of the scope.
But make no mistake about it, if a cop walks by your car and sees a dead body in the back seat, they don't need to get a warrant to search your car...because there is no expectation of privacy...which is, of course, actually what we are talking about.
Who determines privacy? Who enacts the laws? How is privacy enforced? What happens when you report someone for invasion of privacy? I don't understand how this issue can have context without mention of the state.
And we are allowed to take pictures just because we can. If I take your picture in public? Just about nothing you can do about it unless it breaches some other law (like what you mentioned with filming in bathrooms). There are specific things I can't do with that photo, for instance if that person happens to be famous they may have a right to publicity and their image etc. But they don't have rights to copyright or the like. Could I post their photo in a random online forum claiming they have done something illegal? Nope? Can I blackmail them? Nope. But I can absolutely use their photo in a copyrighted way for art or even business.
Sure, which is why I challenged them over jurisdiction on their false claim that you could take a picture wherever you want. You even seem to agree with me that that is not the case.
Because this is libel. You are allowed to say whatever you want, "unless it breaches some other law." Just like your limits on what pictures you can take are not "just because you can" but "unless it breaches some other law."
It all comes down to an expectation of privacy. You have none in a public space as what you are doing everyone else can see.
And the implication of their initial point, in the context of the submission, is that this type of "photography" would be allowed because "you can" and I argue that this would already be protected under current law that there is an expectation of privacy behind in your home. Like in many (it not all?) I can't take a picture of you in your home through a window even if I can see you from a public space, because of the expectation of privacy.
That's exactly what I mean though. It is libel. It's not privacy law. That was the point of saying other laws. But I'm not sure that is what they OG meant when they said you could do whatever you want. I took that to mean an implication that there's a lot of lawful things you can do with someone's picture that you absolutely can gain legally, and should be a breach of their privacy under op's defined parameters.
This is your first response to me. Can you explain to me how I could have possible figured out what you just said from your initial post? You've moved so far from your first post, without at any point admitting at any point that you were wrong or maybe misinterpreted something.
Stop trying to be right and start trying to figure out what's right. You are clearly smart enough to do so.