Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules • Hacker News Board

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#261

Post by godelski » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 8:59 PM UTC

hug wrote: post #191

frankfrankfrank wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The challenge you have is not language related, but rather logic related. The issue our Swiss friend raises is valid, no matter the language. Do Americans not have an expectation of privacy even when talking in public, based on the expectations of the individuals engaged in speech? For example, when you are at a restaurant with friends, is there not an expectation of privacy within the context of your conversation wi…

To provide some clarity on my own position, I understand and echo your desire to have a society in which our quiet moments are not intruded upon. I am not arguing that the expectation that you not be monitored is unreasonable. What I am saying is that these feelings do not line up in a tidy way with the words “private” and “public”. In all versions of modern English that I’m aware of, “public” is an antonym of “priva…

If you're getting into the definition of public vs private you also need to consider what constitutes a reasonable expectation. Not just from our current reference frame of everyone having phones and every business having cameras, but from a few decades ago as well as a century, or more, ago. What may constitute a reasonable expectation today may be extremely divorced from that of when the laws were written. I love the nuance you are getting into, but I do think it needs to be taken at least one step further for a good conversation to take place. People are working with different assumptions and not communicating these well and results in very different versions of reasonable expectation. 50 years ago, even 20, it was pretty reasonable to assume that you could not, let along would not, be recorded unless you were involved in a large public demonstration. I think if we're getting down to public vs private that we should also consider this aspect. And I think we should recognize the difference between a private activity within a public space from a public activity within a public space. The ecosystem has changed and with it we must be a bit more nuanced.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#262

Post by ShadowBanThis01 » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 9:27 PM UTC

rgmerk wrote: post #126

ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There are plenty of legal things that people discuss in parks that they nevertheless wouldn't want recorded and disclosed to all and sundry.

They made the choice to discuss it in a public place. Should lip-readers be required to avert their eyes from everyone else in the park?

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#263

Post by nerdponx » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 9:33 PM UTC

lamontcg wrote: post #230

woodson wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that’s not one-party consent. The ring cameras aren’t a party.

Just give the SCOTUS a bit more time.

By walking or standing in view of this doorbell, you agree to the following terms...

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#264

Post by rlpb » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 9:56 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #251

rlpb wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a distinction between being recorded in the first place, and what the recording might be used for in the future. I think it's OK to permit a recording to take place in a public place without explicit consent, but still require consent to use that recording in (for example) publishing it where someone is a feature in that publication (as opposed to someone who happens to be in the background and remain…

I think the problem is that the environment has changed and people are applying those changes post hoc to the previous environment and when laws were written. Things have changed a lot and I think we need to act accordingly. Continuing as if it all is the same is like boiling a frog, and it is surprising how fast you can turn up the heat. It may seem drastic, but I have seriously considered messaging dang to nuke thi…

> Just because you were in public didn't mean you'd reasonably expect to be recorded.

Sure, but as you say, times have changed and the law needs to keep up. I agree. In my post that you replied to, what I'm saying is that it's futile to adjust the law to prevent people from being recorded. It's better for the law to specify what is acceptable to do with recordings once they are made.

In Europe, that's already happening. For example, in Europe, processing any data relating to your identity, including what can be derived from such recordings, is quite limited under the law. Many uses that you might be concerned about already require your express consent.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#265

Post by LocalH » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 10:10 PM UTC

95014_refugee wrote: post #235

LocalH wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can film the police but you can't post it online as they as individuals have a right to privacy as well This is perverse. What "privacy right" do police officers have when they are on duty or acting under color of law? I think no public official should have a right to privacy while they are actively performing their duties as public officials (this would not apply to their personal life, which is why there shou…

Your baby/bathwater filter seems to be on the fritz. If, as in the common case, a police officer is performing their duty correctly, why should they as a private individual be singled out, maligned, their personal safety be threatened, etc. etc? If you’re coming at this from e.g. the US perspective where the situation with police is a very stylized us/them, this may feel odd.

If they're performing their duty correctly, a video of their work should not be harmful to them at all.

Situations like this are the only time I feel the saying "if you don't have anything to hide, you'd let people look" is appropriate, when concerning people with power "over" common folk. This wouldn't apply to officers doing plainclothes or undercover work, as there would be no reason for a bystander to assume they were a police officer being abusive or doing their job incompetently. This would apply to uniformed officers going outside of the bounds of what is reasonable. It's not a perfect solution, no, but it's a lot better than "uniformed officers have a right to privacy while uniformed and officering, and it is morally wrong to film them in the process of wrongdoing".

There must always be strong checks on authority, lest it be abused. Perhaps the US is up there in the list of offenders, but then again they're not the worst offender in the world by far. Any modern democratic nation is susceptible to authoritarians and fascists wresting control if they don't institute strong protections against it happening.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#266

Post by godelski » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 10:28 PM UTC

rlpb wrote: post #264

godelski wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is that the environment has changed and people are applying those changes post hoc to the previous environment and when laws were written. Things have changed a lot and I think we need to act accordingly. Continuing as if it all is the same is like boiling a frog, and it is surprising how fast you can turn up the heat. It may seem drastic, but I have seriously considered messaging dang to nuke thi…

> Just because you were in public didn't mean you'd reasonably expect to be recorded. Sure, but as you say, times have changed and the law needs to keep up. I agree. In my post that you replied to, what I'm saying is that it's futile to adjust the law to prevent people from being recorded. It's better for the law to specify what is acceptable to do with recordings once they are made. In Europe, that's already happeni…

Just to be clear, I'm not countering your premise, I'm adding to it and providing additional context to justify such an addition. I think you're mainly right that it is better to regulate the usage but I think that we should use the framing of what is being done in public to help define how that data can be used. E.g. a person randomly talking to their friend should have a more respected privacy than a person screaming in the middle of the streets.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#267

Post by ameister14 » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 10:33 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #258

ameister14 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do Americans not have an expectation of privacy even when talking in public, based on the expectations of the individuals engaged in speech? No, they don't, because that would not be a reasonable expectation. >The problem in America is not the speech part, but rather that the logic and reason itself has been inverted and perverted by sophists and abusive manipulators over the decades, which have turned everything up…

>> Do Americans not have an expectation of privacy even when talking in public, based on the expectations of the individuals engaged in speech? > No, they don't, because that would not be a reasonable expectation. If you asked someone before 2000, do you think their answer would be different? Would setting/context change that? i.e. a person talking to their friend on the street vs giving a speech at a protest/demonst…

>If you asked someone before 2000, do you think their answer would be different

No, I don't. I do not think reasonable people ever had an expectation of privacy while in public, especially when they are interacting with other people/strangers.

>Would setting/context change that? i.e. a person talking to their friend on the street vs giving a speech at a protest/demonstration?

Setting and context could change the expectation of privacy, sure - if you're in a private place, it's different from being in public.

>I think before you call reference to Ben Franklin, you have to also consider the differences in settings between today and then. A lot has changed and the discourse around the subject is not properly taking this into account, and often not even acknowledging the existence of change in the first place.

Are you saying people have more of an expectation of privacy now? I thought your whole argument went the other way.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#268

Post by hug » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 10:41 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #261

hug wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To provide some clarity on my own position, I understand and echo your desire to have a society in which our quiet moments are not intruded upon. I am not arguing that the expectation that you not be monitored is unreasonable. What I am saying is that these feelings do not line up in a tidy way with the words “private” and “public”. In all versions of modern English that I’m aware of, “public” is an antonym of “priva…

If you're getting into the definition of public vs private you also need to consider what constitutes a reasonable expectation. Not just from our current reference frame of everyone having phones and every business having cameras, but from a few decades ago as well as a century, or more, ago. What may constitute a reasonable expectation today may be extremely divorced from that of when the laws were written. I love t…

The definition is at its root: “private” is by nature privative: it is essentially defined by what isn’t. If privacy includes “not being observed”, “not being recorded” and “not being overheard” it is hard to have a conversation around asserting the right to privacy, when some of those rights are violated indeliberately and necessarily by virtue of you just being in view or earshot of another person.

The thing you touch on at the end—not quite privity, not quite secrecy, not quite privacy—is the thing I wish I had a word for.

It’s exactly this ur-privacy, though, that people find missing in their lives and are trying to express a well understood, if cloudy, desire for. It’s also something that I tend to agree with the various European governments on, despite my annoyance at the “I know it when I see it” nature of the thing.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#269

Post by lamontcg » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 11:53 PM UTC

nerdponx wrote: post #263

lamontcg wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just give the SCOTUS a bit more time.

By walking or standing in view of this doorbell, you agree to the following terms...

Corporations are people, so Amazon is a person, and if you invite Amazon into your home then they can record a conversation heard across the fence into someone else's yard.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#270

Post by ectospheno » Fri, Jul 07, 2023, 12:11 AM UTC

ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #112

The great thing is that many businesses that try to dick you over tell you immediately "this call may be recorded for quality assurance." And there you have your permission to record it.

I do this when calling help lines for companies. I tell the first person I get that I will be recording the call. 9 out of 10 times I am immediately transferred to someone else who ends up being far more knowledgable than tier 1 support.