Re: [Cryptography] "Most Americans Don't Mind Being on Candid Camera"
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> wrote:
Privacy as we knew it is a memory.
No. this memory... this privacy... is in part defined by what was input and remains in the brain memory of the individual. You walk through a park and on the whole, nothing in particular was ever specifically input, remains in, or is recallable from your memory. What we have now is an applied technological error against humanity occurring faster than the human capacity to process the ramifications. Some would say nuclear weapons fall into this same category. It's that old carnal visceral human control, power, advantage, destruction, against others and innocents thing for which the only real fix is self learning and moderation. There should be no cameras bulk surveilling public spaces, they are offensive to the individual and their memory thus their privacy. The only one who could have one there is the individual for their own purposes... a personal notebook, journalism, research. Not a larger corporation or the government against the privacy/memory of any individual... they both can do no more than record their own front doors. Cameras and databases are an affront to privacy whenever their context can be or does switch from seeing blurry anonymous mass, to the individual. Watching traffic flows is one thing, watching plates is another. Blobby humans moving around vs. doing facialrec on them. Yes, every individual in office of the government should be subject to surveillance by the public during the course of their duties when interacting with other officeholders. LE interacting public should be taped under policy of the public as vested authority accountable. But people need to get off the idea that if everybody watches everbody in one big happy camera pool that all is fair and that that excuses individualizable and individualized surveillance. And most certainly in public or databases where there is no individualized interaction, or permission of individualized recordee, with the recorder. That's incorrect and against humanity.
"Most Americans Don't Mind Being on Candid Camera" [quoting the subject]
Bullshit. Ever walk up to someone and stuff a camera in their face? They'll tell you to fuck off and delete that shit, maybe smash your camera, and maybe even smash you. Same as if you try to troll through their purse, wallet, phone, house, car, or computer. It's not that they don't mind, it's that humans don't tend to actively notice and rage against cameras mounted far away. But it does register in their subconscious and builds a silent well of rage that will someday explode singularly or in mass. Why? Because human DNA is a free range animal, not a caged one, and surveillance and databases are a cage. And like nukes, humanity is a bit slow to conciously realize those kinds of errors. The fact that people around the world are even talking about this should tell you that something's gone wrong and brakes need applied.
Several times several thousand counts of murder. Murder isn't political. It isn't "war" unless it's a dispute between nations. Random yahoos with some islamic jihad
Terror is a fictional infection of news, politics, and the mind. Rational people would know that, treat it as any crime, accept it as the price of freedom, rebuild and move on. Instead the world chose 15 years of ongoing irrationality. They'll be lucky to ever realize or recover from that error.
On 03/25/2015 02:31 PM, grarpamp wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> wrote:
"Most Americans Don't Mind Being on Candid Camera" [quoting the subject]
Bullshit. Ever walk up to someone and stuff a camera in their face? They'll tell you to fuck off and delete that shit, maybe smash your camera, and maybe even smash you
I called the police on a "Nicotine Nazi" one evening in my California town after he stuffed a camera in my face and called me a 'criminal' (if he only knew...) for ROLLING (not smoking) a cigarette on a Starbucks patio and was informed by the police it IS legal to take 'portrait photos' without the subject's permission (assuming they stay out of arms reach), and further (in case you were wondering why bullying is so prevalent) that you can say anything you want short of threats of violence and it IS NOT "assault". Our right to privacy IS being codified away.
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 15:48:54 -0700, Razer <Rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
I called the police on a "Nicotine Nazi" one evening in my California town after he stuffed a camera in my face and called me a 'criminal' (if he only knew...) for ROLLING (not smoking) a cigarette on a Starbucks patio and was informed by the police it IS legal to take 'portrait photos' without the subject's permission (assuming they stay out of arms reach), and further (in case you were wondering why bullying is so prevalent) that you can say anything you want short of threats of violence and it IS NOT "assault".
Was the Starbucks Patio visible from a 'public' area, like the sidewalk? Then one could argue you don't have much of an expectation of privacy. If I was in this position and the Nicotine Nazi refused to stop filming after being politely asked to do so, I would pick up and move inside the restaurant, somewhere out of camera shot. If they followed you in and kept filming I would ask the manager to escort them off the premises.
Dnia czwartek, 26 marca 2015 23:36:33 Seth pisze:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 15:48:54 -0700, Razer <Rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
I called the police on a "Nicotine Nazi" one evening in my California town after he stuffed a camera in my face and called me a 'criminal' (if he only knew...) for ROLLING (not smoking) a cigarette on a Starbucks patio and was informed by the police it IS legal to take 'portrait photos' without the subject's permission (assuming they stay out of arms reach), and further (in case you were wondering why bullying is so prevalent) that you can say anything you want short of threats of violence and it IS NOT "assault".
Was the Starbucks Patio visible from a 'public' area, like the sidewalk? Then one could argue you don't have much of an expectation of privacy.
So Polish law is interesting here: basically, one can make a picture without consent of people visible on the picture as long as they are not the apparent topic of the picture. I.e. you can have a picture of a public space with some random tourists, and you can publish that on the Internet without asking these tourists for approval. On the other hand, if you make a picture of a particular person or persons, even in a public setting, where they are apparently the topic of the picture, it's illegal without their consent. It's obviously a bit of a blurred line, but I think it's a much better way of handling this than "if you're in a public space, you have no expectation of privacy" bullshit. Privacy is a bit more complicated than that. -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
participants (4)
-
grarpamp
-
Razer
-
rysiek
-
Seth