Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

documentcloud.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 291 posts

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

#281

Post by hnbad »

criley2 wrote: post #165
hnbad wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this basically allows blanket surveillance of anything you do in public to the point that paparazzi or stalkers could just legally chase and livestream you every minute after you exit your home until you enter another private space? I'll never understand why Americans believe there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces. An alleyway is very different from a stage in the town square.

Two points: 1) Americans place freedom of speech (including photography or recording things) very highly and are willing to suffer some damage in exchange for more freedom. 2) Limits on recording in public would very quickly and very easily be weaponized by police against minorities, leftists, and basically anyone else who resists the creeping tide of ---- well, you know, right wing politics. Saving celebrity's from…

You're saying this like the laws aren't different in other countries without these issues arising. It's reasonable to argue that a police officer on duty is exempt from the expectation of privacy and indeed many such countries have exemptions for police officers on duty.

It's also reasonable to have different expectations of privacy for people "of public interest" (i.e. celebrities, politicians and extremely wealthy business moguls) and indeed many such countries do distinguish between what privacy you can expect as an ordinary individual or someone whose job literally involves having their face frequently appear in public media.

Your response is very American too, by the way: while you are concerned about state oppression (or rather: the ability to record state oppression) I'm concerned about the oppression by both businesses and the state that a complete absence of an expectation of privacy outside well-defined private spaces enables. Specifically it trivial to justify mass surveillance and various forms of harassment.

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

#282

Post by hnbad »

evandale wrote: post #190
nunuvit wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first page of the summary explains how there are already exceptions for recording police.

Those exceptions won't stop police from thinking you can't record them and using that as a reason to bust your phone followed by busting your lip. Him and his 5 buddies will go on to say that you provoked them and you'll never see justice. In general, North American police are ignorant bullies who couldn't hack it through high school or college. Their maturity level is stuck in the past as well, usually never maturin…

But they already do that. There have already been cases of cops in the US arresting people for filming them. Not to mention cops have literally attacked journalists (not just "citizen journalists" but actual TV crews) at protests and destroyed their equipment.

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

#283

Post by hnbad »

evandale wrote: post #259
nunuvit wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they'll be in the wrong the second they take action against you But like you said, they lied about you provoking them and destroyed the evidence showing that you didn't. Nobody will ever know that they beat you up just because you were recording. I know why cops don't want body cams.

You quoted my conclusion without any context and ignored multiple crucial details: > You may have a chance to see justice because it won't matter if the cop and his 5 buddies say you provoked them with a camera. It's unambiguous that you can record them and there's no possibility of reasonable doubt if you're allowed to record them 100% of the time. There's no loophole they can use to say you can't record them due to…

Cops can get away with literally shooting you in the back. Even outside qualified immunity cops can get away with a lot of things that are technically illegal. If it's a matter of testimony and it's five cops saying one thing and you saying something else, your chances aren't great.

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

#284

Post by godelski »

ameister14 wrote: post #278
godelski wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Yeah, I don't buy that. Let me be quite specific: do you think someone would answer the following question differently "what is the likelihood that you will be on camera if you walk to the library and back?" I absolutely guarantee the numbers will change…

>Yeah, I don't buy that. Let me be quite specific: do you think someone would answer the following question differently "what is the likelihood that you will be on camera if you walk to the library and back?" They'd probably answer that differently, same as if you asked them about someone filming them on their cell phone or any other technological change. That doesn't have much to do with your earlier question, thoug…

> That doesn't have much to do with your earlier question, though.

It has everything to do with the question. Being recorded is a different level of privacy invasion than being seen.

> I wouldn't describe being in a bathroom as being 'in public' though.

And thus why you can't assert that your definition is absolute. If people are disagreeing and you admit community norms differ, then you can't have an objective reference and that's my main point.

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

#285

Post by ameister14 »

godelski wrote: post #284
ameister14 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yeah, I don't buy that. Let me be quite specific: do you think someone would answer the following question differently "what is the likelihood that you will be on camera if you walk to the library and back?" They'd probably answer that differently, same as if you asked them about someone filming them on their cell phone or any other technological change. That doesn't have much to do with your earlier question, thoug…

> That doesn't have much to do with your earlier question, though. It has everything to do with the question. Being recorded is a different level of privacy invasion than being seen. > I wouldn't describe being in a bathroom as being 'in public' though. And thus why you can't assert that your definition is absolute. If people are disagreeing and you admit community norms differ, then you can't have an objective refer…

>Being recorded is a different level of privacy invasion than being seen.

Why do you think I used the newspaper-man example? Being recorded in text has happened for a long time.

>you can't assert that your definition is absolute. If people are disagreeing and you admit community norms differ, then you can't have an objective reference and that's my main point.

I never asserted that my definition was absolute. I applied the spectrum to your examples. A 'reasonable person' standard is not an arbitrary bright-line rule, it's representative of the community and what their idea of a reasonably prudent person's expectations and behavior are.

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

#286

Post by DropInIn »

sschueller wrote: post #153
loteck wrote: post #58

Very few commenters seem to realize that this decision affects only "States prohibiting recording without providing notice to or obtaining consent from the recording’s subjects when created in a place where the subjects lack a reasonable expectation of privacy “ (e.g. when talking in public). Which is only 5 states: Alaska, Kentucky, Montana, Massachusetts and Oregon. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2…

I don't understand why public is considered "lack a reasonable expectation of privacy". In Switzerland this only applies if you are in public at a large gathering or event where the use of cameras etc. is expected. In any other situation in public, if you single out a specific person (even if their face is not visible but they are identifiable by clothing/tattoo or vehicle registration etc.) in a video you are violat…

Is Switzerland as covered in security cameras as the USA?

Because there's not really a whole lot of public places aside from parts of national and state parks where one could reasonably expect to not be on a camera most of the time, right?

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

#287

Post by godelski »

ameister14 wrote: post #285
godelski wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That doesn't have much to do with your earlier question, though. It has everything to do with the question. Being recorded is a different level of privacy invasion than being seen. > I wouldn't describe being in a bathroom as being 'in public' though. And thus why you can't assert that your definition is absolute. If people are disagreeing and you admit community norms differ, then you can't have an objective refer…

>Being recorded is a different level of privacy invasion than being seen. Why do you think I used the newspaper-man example? Being recorded in text has happened for a long time. >you can't assert that your definition is absolute. If people are disagreeing and you admit community norms differ, then you can't have an objective reference and that's my main point. I never asserted that my definition was absolute. I appli…

> Why do you think I used the newspaper-man example?

And a voice recording is even more reliable and convincing but hasn't existed for "a long time." A camera is even more so. Today's state is not equivalent to a written record. Basically take your newspaper-man, make them better, and make a lot more of them. Your argument is failing to convince me not because I haven't understood your argument, it is failing because the assumptions being made are shaky. I will not buy a claim that anyone honestly believes that a random person telling their friend about something they overheard is equivalent to that same person showing their friend an audio recording or a video.

This is what I have been consistently claiming and saying is a critical aspect where you keep just saying that people have memories. These are not the same, and it is not remotely reasonable to say that they are the same. And if this were all that mattered, then you'd have a reasonable expectation of privacy were you to walk around a non-metropolitan city late at night while everyone else sleeps, simply due to you having a reasonable expectation of everyone being asleep. If you want to be convincing, dig into the complexity and connections that are related to your argument. Think about the factors that interplay and through what mechanisms. Specifically look at how these variables changed over time (taking into account prevalence and utility). Honestly, I don't think you can do this without coming to a very different conclusion. You're lacking sufficient complexity to account for the relevant data. It is fine to start simple, but you gotta add complexity to make strong conclusions. Ignoring the difference between cameras and newspapers isn't helping.

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

#288

Post by specialist »

godelski wrote: post #256
specialist wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I also get flummoxed whenever I try to talk about this stuff. Further, I've only recently appreciated that our modern folk understanding of right to privacy has eclipsed its twin, the right to personal autonomy . The development of the doctrine regarding the tort of "invasion of privacy" was largely spurred by the Warren and Brandeis article, "The Right to Privacy". In it, they explain why they wrote the arti…

> I love the EU's notion of consent wrt privacy Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the EU laws contingent upon legality? Article 8.2 > Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned __or some other legitimate basis laid down by law.__ Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rec…

Sorry for delayed response.

> ...aren't the EU laws contingent upon legality?

Sorry, for EU & privacy, I've only read up on GDPR, briefly. Back when I was trying to wrap my head around USA privacy stuff, I'm embarrassed I didn't have the gumption to compare and contrast with other systems.

> our duties as citizens within a democratic nation(s) to challenge the authority and laws, to keep them in check.

Preach!

--

My notions about "trust", which confuses me endlessly, evolved while I was working on election integrity (voter privacy) and patient medical records. (Separate efforts.)

"Trust" in government is something like a qwan. Whenever I try to talk about trust, I usually end up contradicting myself.

I once heard the US Constitution was created in an orgy of mistrust.

We're familiar with checks & balances, which is fundamental and necessary and good. But we also need the mutual mistrust of all the belligerents, at every level, all the time.

I was a poll worker for a while. We'd tabulate and post our precinct's results the moment the polls closed.

For observers, that public posting was not a proof of truth, that these are the numbers. Rather, it was an attestation by the participating representatives of the major political parties that we all agreed to abide by the posted results.

As you can imagine, most of the time it's just a semantic difference. But it is a difference in perspective. And becomes far more than semantic once the margin of error becomes relevant (challenged ballots, provisionals, verifying the voter rolls, etc, etc).

And that's kind of where I am now wrt "trust". Applied to government, any given org, or my neighbors.

Secondly, my personal operating definition of trust has changed from "confidence" to "matches my expectations (predictions)".

I have almost zero confidence that my government, or any other person or org, will "do the right thing", whatever that might be.

Now I try to predict outcomes, based on past behavior and my folk understanding of the human condition, plus intuition, mixed with cynicism.

I can even "trust" liars, and terrible drivers, and walking my dog off-leash, and otherwise merely flawed entities, if I can predict their actions and the outcomes. (Cite "Everybody Lies" by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz.)

And if I want to change outcomes, to increase my "confidence" in a system, I have to participate, to maybe change the trajectory a few arc-seconds. Ideally, by focusing on durable structural and process reforms. Instead of demanding specific outcomes, which are easy to accommodate and are unlikely to change future outcomes.

Okay. Thanks for your reply and nudge and reading this far. I can't yet answer your question. And I felt compelled to (over) share my notions of trust, based on my past failures and shortcomings as an activist.

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

#289

Post by remix2000 »

JustBreath wrote: post #279
remix2000 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's more related to the fact that most Europeans normally speak languages other than English.

A bit difficult to post them when they are illegal, no?

Not at all actually. There is a constant stream of compromising material posted online in Europe. It's a huge problem actually, because it's notoriously hard to get such stuff taken down, as the authorities simply do not care.

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

#290

Post by [deleted] »

nunuvit wrote: post #275
evandale wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You quoted my conclusion without any context and ignored multiple crucial details: > You may have a chance to see justice because it won't matter if the cop and his 5 buddies say you provoked them with a camera. It's unambiguous that you can record them and there's no possibility of reasonable doubt if you're allowed to record them 100% of the time. There's no loophole they can use to say you can't record them due to…

He could say you told him you had a gun, and brandished what looked like a gun. No reason to admit that it's really about the camera.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN