22
Is there a term (akin to "privacy") which encompasses collection of personal data, regardless of the "expectation of privacy" demoralization applying? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

And if not, its existence is highly overdue.

Where tracking of privacy-sensitive activities of individuals in public, traditionally required exhaustible resources (as in agents physically shadowing targets); cameras and other sensors can (and will) track said activities of any individual in public, regardless of being targeted (not that targeting individuals is possible to begin with: only after collection, one can pinky swear not to look at, or discard information regarding non-targets).

The main difference being, one traditionally having effective "expectation of privacy" in public (unless specifically targeted by authorities: having sufficient reason to allocate resources to the individual), but in the context of modern technology we lost the benefit of the doubt. And unless never setting a foot outside again, any arguably more incriminating personal data (naked in the shower versus protesting an oppressive government) should be "expected" to be collected.

So because "privacy" is historically tainted with said demoralization, any efforts to defend "privacy" in "public" (where one can truly no longer have expectation thereof) are doomed to fail. Therefore I wish to have a term, without ambiguity introduced by any subjective matter (that is "expectancy": the individual's versus a typically biassed judge's); one that makes no distinction between personal data being collected in private, or in public.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 4 months ago (10 children)

Your best bet is to start reading up on privacy and fourth amendment cases. Privacy is a right legally enshrined with very precise boundaries. Anonymity is not.

That distinction is extremely important because the things you’re describing are not violations of your privacy. Except when you describe coercion which is a different crime.

I want to be as clear as possible: I am not trying to have the philosophical conversation you are trying to have. I am trying to bring your concerns into the real world (which they’re about, tbf) and into the real realm of understanding of that world that the law corresponds to. Because ultimately that’s the lines you need to color inside and out whose geometry you need to be aware of.

Aside from actually answering the question: What are you trying to accomplish and where? Which no one will do, that’s the most help I can offer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 4 months ago* (9 children)

    The discussion was about "effective privacy" in public: your every move not meticulously being monitored in it, and therefore effectively remaining unknown; despite technically falling under public "knowledge". I understand how "privacy" is typically interpreted in context of legal cases and law, and how it doesn't, or inadequately accounts for advances in technology: leading to formerly hidden public activities, possibly becoming uncovered as a result. If anything, I think we've clearly demonstrated the usefulness of a catch-all term, that generally doesn't discern between context, in which personal data is being collected; which was ultimately the intent of this post.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    Actions in public are not “technically” public knowledge, they are public knowledge.

    If you dont want to be observed, figure out how to avoid observation when in public.

    Public activities are not hidden, they were simply not observed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 months ago (7 children)

    We can keep falling over these minor differences, but as far as I'm concerned it's a distinction without a difference, practically speaking. You seem to disagree, which is completely fine too. Have a good one! :)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (6 children)

    The distinction has an explicitly defined difference with hundreds of years of history behind it in the us alone and severe consequences for misunderstanding it.

    I don’t mind to disengage but these are not abstract concepts we’re discussing and treating them as such does more harm than good to anyone who reads what you say.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 months ago (5 children)

    I think it's clear I can't convince you, you can't convince me, and that the only thing left is to respectfully disagree.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)

    I am not trying to convince you of something. I am trying to help you to understand why using the word privacy as a stand in for what you mean (which is anonymity, btw) is a bad idea.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Anonymity might actually be a reasonable fit here: if data couldn't, in any way, shape or form and without measurable confidence, be attributed to a person (or context related to them: a car, or a specific shirt worn that day, being examples); then details about one's private life couldn't be inferred, based on publicly available information.

    If for example: a surveillance system logged a person frequently moving from one house to another, while confident in the identity of the person departing from home, and a track record of the persons present in the house of destination on arrival, it can be inferred the person in question, has some relationship with the other persons.

    So because this person has no choice, other than to be subjected to public surveillance, it is physically impossible to keep such details to oneself (private if you will). Similarly, if every other started wearing spywearables ("smart" glasses, pendant, pin, etc.) or (unknowingly) bugging their houses (a home surveillance system, robot vacuum, or any other "smart" appliance with listening devices); how are you going to keep anything private, and when is in no context "expectation of privacy" "reasonable"?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Of course noticing stuff will tell you about relationships. If I always stop at the same gas station at 12:30 and then lean on my truck eating a moon pie and drinking a coke a person can infer that I’m eating my lunch there.

    Just like your example: if I always go to a specific house an observer is gonna reasonably assume I have a relationship to keep up in that house, even if it’s just making sure the last renters of the b&b turned off the gas.

    You can’t stop living your life just because people might learn that you’re doing it. Actually you can but that’s a sign of mental illness. I’m not trying to make you feel bad here, if you are developing those types of tendencies please seek help.

    You have a right and expectation of privacy when you’re (at least in the United States) on private property and out of plain view (except for the non-visible spectrum component of your presence) or on public property in a courtroom, bath, locker or changing room. When you’re on someone else’s private property and you recognize your rights are being violated somehow the expectation is generally that you will leave.

    Cops and spooks have known for years and years how bad robot vacuums for example are but they havent wanted to use them as evidence because of how quickly and easily they could be excluded due to 4a violation. All they need is for the owner to testify that they never intended for the roomba to turn over information about their residence to law enforcement and the Eula is shredded.

    To give you something to consider, there’s a sci fi book that describes people who take on the role of holding cameras and microphones in public as “gargoyles”. I think it’s Stephenson. Nowadays there are people who hold cameras and microphones in public who call themselves auditors.

    Back in my day, there was a boom in the ownership of instant film cameras. Everyone attributed it to nostalgia and for sure in the present there are imitation Polaroids everywhere for sale marketed to that nostalgic feeling that now parents conjure up when using them, but they became parents because they were taking naked pictures of each other with instamatics because the trust they had put in each other wasn’t immediately mediated by an inscrutable, unpredictable device.

    The point of that isn’t to get you into instants, but to help make it clear that the way you handle not knowing when you’re being watched or where something is going is by communicating with the people around you. Maybe it’s a phones in the fridge type conversation, you won’t know till you ask. The way you handle public interaction is by assuming it’s all being recorded.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Of course noticing stuff will tell you about relationships. If I always stop at the same gas station at 12:30 and then lean on my truck eating a moon pie and drinking a coke a person can infer that I’m eating my lunch there.

    the huge difference, is whether it's recorded in a searchable digital system, or just some random people see it who if sane have better things to do than trying to figure out where are you eating lunch.

    Just like your example: if I always go to a specific house an observer is gonna reasonably assume I have a relationship to keep up in that house,

    and a very limited circle of people will have information on that. that information is not easily accessible and searchable, and that information also decays over time.

    I’m not trying to make you feel bad here, if you are developing those types of tendencies please seek help.

    of course not, you are yet again trying to stir shit, and convince people that the need for privacy is degeneracy, that resistance is futile anyway, and that cameras on the pole pointing at your entrance are completely fine.

    When you’re on someone else’s private property and you recognize your rights are being violated somehow the expectation is generally that you will leave.

    the problem is majorly about public property locations that you cannot avoid while living life.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    It might be worthwhile to take a look at the nras argumentation against a firearms owners registry to better understand the recent history of searchable digital systems.

    Information has not decayed over time for both our lives except on a scale that can be described as absolutely geologic.

    As before, I am not making fun of you, but describing roads I have personally been down.

    As I said above, the point is to help you understand that you approach the concerns you’ve voiced by recognizing that when you are in public you are being observed and clearly communicating privacy concerns to people around you.

    As said way up above, I’m not trying to fight you, I’m trying to help you understand your own concerns in a broader context that has existed for hundreds of years rather than a scant decade because the context and history opens up more opportunities for you to take action than when you only consider the time that the flock camera system has been in operation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent