Comment by smacktoward | Hacker News Reader

Comment by smacktoward | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> My belief is - if one wants privacy - they should park in the backyard (i.e. area restricted to general public)

Old Town Alexandria (http://www.visitalexandriava.com/about-alexandria/old-town-a...) is a very dense, built-up historic district. Because space is at such a premium there, lots of residences there are not going to have backyard or garage parking available; it's on-street parking or nothing.

(Source: I live in Alexandria, though not in Old Town -- that neighborhood is crazy expensive. Like, SF expensive.)

> If you don't emit anything, there's nothing to receive thus nothing to store - privacy problem ultimately solved

We've assigned Officer Smith here to follow you around and make notes about what buildings you enter and exit, and when. He won't follow you into the buildings, of course -- we respect your privacy! He'll just be waiting there for you outside whenever you step out a door.

If this makes you uncomfortable, you are free to cover yourself in a tarp or plastic garbage bag whenever you go outside. Problem solved.

Right?

You have a point. A serious one.

Not sure, but I guess, the distinction here is active vs passive surveillance. If there's an attack on my privacy (i.e. a stalker or a bunch of ones targeting me) - that would be problematic, because I'm quite limited on (legal) options to stop that behavior.

If someone walks around the city and records everything they see, systematizing the collected data - well, we all do this. Our brains do this, our smartphones do this, some of the cars do this, and as tech progresses a number of examples would only rise. Technology just enhances our vision and memories, and I think it would be very bad idea to limit that.

Yet, I don't know the solution. I just say, that I believe "make it illegal to record things" is a bad option too - maybe not as bad as "make everyone wear garbage bags", but certainly not a good solution.

Added: I say that because I have somehow bad memory (medium-term one, like remembering dialogs after half an hour or faces of the people I met yesterday) and really happy that modern tech helps me to mitigate this issue. Obviously, I'm not thinking of spying on anyone, but I think having an ability to remember anything that happened around has a value.

Personal memory != computer memory. Requiring that records are deleted after a certain time is not the same as asking someone to forget something.

If a crime is committed police will frequently ask the public to remember and submit details. It is the entire basis of Crime Stoppers[1].

In this case, instead of humans everywhere remember things (imperfectly) you have computers everywhere remembering things exactly.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_Stoppers

The line which seems so clear to you now will only get blurrier.

Not really. If you have a statute of limitations and mandatory data retention requirements, data deletion sounds perfectly reasonable.

I'm not sure if you're arguing that the line between computer and personal memory will not get blurrier (implied by "not really"), or that mandatory memory erasure sounds perfectly reasonable.

Or maybe I didn't communicate clearly. :)

Well, the reality is that until we get memory implants this will still be a concern, and it would be ideal if options start being explored now. It's certain that between now and then there will most likely be a more developed ethical and legal framework for this.

> Technology just enhances our vision and memories, and I think it would be very bad idea to limit that.

Why?

We limit and regulate how much technology enhances our abilities in all sorts of ways when there's a consensus that the enhancement harms society at large. Cars enhance our ability to travel, for instance, but we require their operators to be licensed and to maintain them properly to reduce the amount of accidents and environmental damage they cause. My cellphone can take pictures and record video, but there are places where I'm legally restricted from using it to do so, like courthouses and locker rooms. And so forth.

Any technology that empowers people is going to empower some of them to do icky things to the rest of us. So we have to draw boundaries to delineate where appropriate use of those technologies becomes inappropriate use. Police departments have benefited from ALPRs being so new that these lines don't exist yet for them, but the more stories like this that emerge, the greater will become the pressure on communities to start drawing them.

"the distinction here is active vs passive surveillance"

I fully agree with the rest of your comment, but this part is a distinction without a difference, ultimately. With more and more complete passive surveillance, active surveillance will be less and less necessary. I think the best way forward is Brin's sousveillance idea: if there are no legal restrictions on recording anywhere, this at once evens the social/legal playing field, and prevents wasting increasing resources on stopping something which is increasingly difficult to stop.

> I believe "make it illegal to record things" is a bad option too

Phrased that broadly, it would be terribly abusive and detrimental to free speech. But imagine a much more narrow rule, concerning only the mass recording and retention of geotagged, timestamped license plate photos. It may be only a quantitative difference and not a qualitative one. But public policy often hinges on distinctions of that sort, as we try to balance competing societal interests.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com