If you're in public, you have no expectation of privacy.
People keep saying that in this debate, as if it's some sort of self-evident principle that must not be questioned, but is it anything more than a meaningless tautology? Aren't you in public by definition in places where you have no privacy? If so, then being in public is defined by how we define privacy.
The public/private distinction has never been absolute, such that everything about you and what you're doing is either in public or in private at any given time. We're sharing our thoughts on a public forum on the Internet, but at least one of us is physically sitting in his own home while doing so. I have different expectations of privacy for what I'm saying on HN vs. the conversation I just had with someone in this room.
The lines are similarly blurred if we go out. For example, in most jurisdictions you do not give up all rights to privacy just because you went out your front door. If a guy follows you around with a video camera and tries to watch you enter security details when you're paying for stuff at a shop, he's probably going to get in trouble. If a public venue installs video cameras in its bathrooms or changing rooms, it's probably going to get in trouble. If some pervert tries to film up your or your wife's/sister's/daughter's skirt, he's probably going to get in a lot of trouble. These things are all easily possible with technology, and all happen in a "public place", yet I think almost everyone would still consider them unacceptable invasions of privacy and the law in many places would prohibit such behaviour.
Maybe as technology that can be used for surveillance and data mining evolves, we need to evolve our understanding of what should be considered private as well, in order to maintain effective protection of the same underlying values. If metadata alone can now be used to determine sensitive details about us that we would consider to be private if collected directly, then perhaps the collection and use of that metadata should be controlled in the same ways as direct collection and use of the implicit data. If sensitive data is collected for one purpose with consent but can now be repurposed more easily for additional uses, maybe there need to be explicit safeguards to control that risk.
Hmm, yea privacy in public is an interesting thought. I don’t think its ridiculous to say you should have _some_ privacy, even in a public space. It feels like the expectation is that you can be physically seen, but beyond that I don’t see how someone loses all facets of privacy, unless you’re assuming a surveillance-state.
Ok... I'm just taking your arguments (that you have no expectation of privacy in public) and showing you all the ways that you, personally, have an expectation of privacy in public.
You have an expectation in a public shower. You have an expectation of privacy when your bits are in public. Why not in other situations?
The world view is that what happens in public space is not private; you can't expect privacy for things you do in public.
If you go to a public concert, people can look at you, note that you were here and tell that to others. That doesn't violate privacy because you had no privacy there to begin with. And in a similar manner, if you drove last thursday on a particular road, whoever bothered to look at you and your car is allowed to do so, note that you were there, write it down and tell that to others.
Privacy is about your private stuff - what you do in your private space, what you have in your private items. If you go out in the public, the things that you do (and where, and when, and with whom) are not private anymore.
You do have privacy in public. Both the de jure "reasonable expectation of privacy" and the de facto privacies of anonymity, free association, and predictable rules of social engagement.
This isn't a privacy argument, you already (should) have privacy in the situations where you're not around other people or out in the open.
This is about the times when you're out on the street with everybody else. That's when you can't reasonably expect EVERYONE TO LOOK AWAY when you walk into a store, or buy a coffee or throw your trash on the ground.
It's those times when you're not private. You know, in public.
This is it right here. The 'no expectation of privacy in public' mantra is increasingly extending into places that I absolutely have an expectation of privacy.
This has been a huge brouhaha lately. Most rational people would agree that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, but the courts haven't actually ruled that way. See this guy's story for more:
I'm not willingly giving up any information by being in a public space, because I don't have any choice about being in public spaces. Any information people gain about me is being taken, not given freely.
> I don't think going online is an optional activity either.
I think that can be debated, but let's say you're right: that just reinforces my point.
My essential point is that the "public space" argument isn't terribly meaningful. Actual consent can only be given in the absence of coercion. If being surveilled is a requirement in order to simply function as a human being, then consent doesn't enter into it.
And, in my view, all of the arguments about privacy and spying hinge on the issue of consent. If data is being gathered about me without my consent, then I'm being spied on.
That is not universally true, there are some expectations of privacy in some public places. For example, public restrooms, phone booths, dressing rooms, people's person, car, belongings, etc.
I think there's a difference between forgoing privacy when in public and forgoing privacy when in private. Having anybody be able to see me when I'm on a city street is one thing, having anybody be able to see into my bedroom is another.
Actually I do expect a certain degree of privacy while in public. No everyone is comfortable with Google spying and data mining everything they can get their hands on.
People keep saying that in this debate, as if it's some sort of self-evident principle that must not be questioned, but is it anything more than a meaningless tautology? Aren't you in public by definition in places where you have no privacy? If so, then being in public is defined by how we define privacy.
The public/private distinction has never been absolute, such that everything about you and what you're doing is either in public or in private at any given time. We're sharing our thoughts on a public forum on the Internet, but at least one of us is physically sitting in his own home while doing so. I have different expectations of privacy for what I'm saying on HN vs. the conversation I just had with someone in this room.
The lines are similarly blurred if we go out. For example, in most jurisdictions you do not give up all rights to privacy just because you went out your front door. If a guy follows you around with a video camera and tries to watch you enter security details when you're paying for stuff at a shop, he's probably going to get in trouble. If a public venue installs video cameras in its bathrooms or changing rooms, it's probably going to get in trouble. If some pervert tries to film up your or your wife's/sister's/daughter's skirt, he's probably going to get in a lot of trouble. These things are all easily possible with technology, and all happen in a "public place", yet I think almost everyone would still consider them unacceptable invasions of privacy and the law in many places would prohibit such behaviour.
Maybe as technology that can be used for surveillance and data mining evolves, we need to evolve our understanding of what should be considered private as well, in order to maintain effective protection of the same underlying values. If metadata alone can now be used to determine sensitive details about us that we would consider to be private if collected directly, then perhaps the collection and use of that metadata should be controlled in the same ways as direct collection and use of the implicit data. If sensitive data is collected for one purpose with consent but can now be repurposed more easily for additional uses, maybe there need to be explicit safeguards to control that risk.
reply