7 ms·

There is no expectation of privacy in public. It's really that simple.

Cider9986 3mo ago
Actually, the supreme court ruled that police have to get a warrant to view cell tracking data and attach a location tracking device to cars. Flock is a clever workaround that should be illegal, but before that can happens we can get them removed at the city council level.
- Manuel_D 3mo ago
  Both of those two above cases involve tracking people both in public and in private. Furthermore the former involved compelling a company to fork over private information. Traffic cameras, by comparison, only record people's in public. A police officer isn't violating privacy laws by standing at an intersection and writing down the plates of cars passing by is he? Flock is just automating that task. The whole reason why we have license plates is to facilitate monitoring cars. If we really think that people have a right to keep their vehicular activities private, then surely the bigger privacy violation is the fact that we require cars to display unique identifiers in a prominent manner?
dualvariable 3mo ago
There should be.
thechao 3mo ago
I have strong expectations, in fact; I need the state to respect that.
anigbrowl 3mo ago
There should be. Other countries have one and they seem no worse off for it.
afh1 3mo ago
There may be no expectation of privacy in the sense someone may see you and take your picture. There is an expectation you are not constantly tracked everywhere you go by a nationwide surveillance apparatus, that your location is not constantly monitored, indexed and shared. Unless you expect to live in an Orwellian distopia.
- assimpleaspossi 3mo ago
  And what happens to you? Has something happened to you? Or anyone you know who wasn't involved in something illegal?
  - antonvs 3mo ago
    The have been cases of police harassing and stalking people using Flock cameras. Just because it hasn't happened to you personally doesn't mean it's not a real issue.
    - assimpleaspossi 3mo ago
      People are trying to apply a few internet reports to everyone and everything instead of the reality that it rarely happens and is typically a one off thing. Quit applying online things and TV so-called "news" to the world and follow what's happening around you instead.
      - antonvs 3mo ago
        No. There's a reason that transparency, oversight, and controls are important in government. It allows citizens to detect abuse of power, it allows checks and balances, it improves government decisions, it protects citizens' freedom. The issue is not that people are being recorded in public, the issue is people are being recorded in public and the data is being correlated nationwide and accessed by government officials without any of the usual controls, oversight, or transparency that necessarily goes with such efforts when government is involved. Whether you realize it or not, you're arguing for an authoritarian society. Perhaps that's what you want - some people do - but sane people will always resist that kind of behavior, because ultimately it hurts everyone.
kennywinker 3mo ago
Do you agree with that, or are you just deferring to an overly simplified interpretation of the law? No law is that simple. You can be photographed when you’re out in public most places, yet stalking is also illegal most places.
rolph 3mo ago
do you wear a skirt or a kilt? now about the no expectation of privacy in public ..
microgpt 3mo ago
There was an implicit expectation that, although people could take your picture, there weren't a million people roaming around taking everyone's pictures all the time because it takes a few seconds to take someone's picture.
randusername 3mo ago
Of course there is. You can take notice of beautiful women in public. You cannot take upskirt photos. You can eavesdrop on a conversation at the park. You cannot put mics under all the benches. Privacy is a situational continuum of invasiveness. Just because there is no expectation of privacy from the state in using public roads does not mean we should tolerate corporations building profiles analyzing the comings and goings of citizens.
explodes 3mo ago
There is a difference between one or even twenty pictures being taken of you, and hundreds or thousands of pictures. One is "public privacy" and the other is "dragnet stalking".

Actually, the supreme court ruled that police have to get a warrant to view cell tracking data and attach a location tracking device to cars. Flock is a clever workaround that should be illegal, but before that can happens we can get them removed at the city council level.

Manuel_D 3mo ago
Both of those two above cases involve tracking people both in public and in private. Furthermore the former involved compelling a company to fork over private information. Traffic cameras, by comparison, only record people's in public. A police officer isn't violating privacy laws by standing at an intersection and writing down the plates of cars passing by is he? Flock is just automating that task. The whole reason why we have license plates is to facilitate monitoring cars. If we really think that people have a right to keep their vehicular activities private, then surely the bigger privacy violation is the fact that we require cars to display unique identifiers in a prominent manner?

dualvariable 3mo ago

There should be.

thechao 3mo ago

I have strong expectations, in fact; I need the state to respect that.

anigbrowl 3mo ago

There should be. Other countries have one and they seem no worse off for it.

afh1 3mo ago

There may be no expectation of privacy in the sense someone may see you and take your picture. There is an expectation you are not constantly tracked everywhere you go by a nationwide surveillance apparatus, that your location is not constantly monitored, indexed and shared. Unless you expect to live in an Orwellian distopia.

assimpleaspossi 3mo ago
And what happens to you? Has something happened to you? Or anyone you know who wasn't involved in something illegal?
- antonvs 3mo ago
  The have been cases of police harassing and stalking people using Flock cameras. Just because it hasn't happened to you personally doesn't mean it's not a real issue.
  - assimpleaspossi 3mo ago
    People are trying to apply a few internet reports to everyone and everything instead of the reality that it rarely happens and is typically a one off thing. Quit applying online things and TV so-called "news" to the world and follow what's happening around you instead.
    - antonvs 3mo ago
      No. There's a reason that transparency, oversight, and controls are important in government. It allows citizens to detect abuse of power, it allows checks and balances, it improves government decisions, it protects citizens' freedom. The issue is not that people are being recorded in public, the issue is people are being recorded in public and the data is being correlated nationwide and accessed by government officials without any of the usual controls, oversight, or transparency that necessarily goes with such efforts when government is involved. Whether you realize it or not, you're arguing for an authoritarian society. Perhaps that's what you want - some people do - but sane people will always resist that kind of behavior, because ultimately it hurts everyone.

kennywinker 3mo ago

Do you agree with that, or are you just deferring to an overly simplified interpretation of the law? No law is that simple. You can be photographed when you’re out in public most places, yet stalking is also illegal most places.

rolph 3mo ago

do you wear a skirt or a kilt? now about the no expectation of privacy in public ..

microgpt 3mo ago

There was an implicit expectation that, although people could take your picture, there weren't a million people roaming around taking everyone's pictures all the time because it takes a few seconds to take someone's picture.

randusername 3mo ago

Of course there is. You can take notice of beautiful women in public. You cannot take upskirt photos. You can eavesdrop on a conversation at the park. You cannot put mics under all the benches. Privacy is a situational continuum of invasiveness. Just because there is no expectation of privacy from the state in using public roads does not mean we should tolerate corporations building profiles analyzing the comings and goings of citizens.

explodes 3mo ago

There is a difference between one or even twenty pictures being taken of you, and hundreds or thousands of pictures. One is "public privacy" and the other is "dragnet stalking".