Complacency

[Matt Jensen]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Jason Axtell wrote:

> We're talking about a camera in a public place. I think that's the important
> issue. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in such a setting, so
> the camera really isn't taking anything away.

You're saying "these places have been and will remain public places, so
nothing's changed."  The other side is saying "there will soon be cameras
everywhere in public, and that is a big change."  

I think the first is talking about legal definitions of expectations,
which with stare decisis may remain unaffected.  The second is taking
about personal or social expectations, and the effects there could be
significant.

If you're at the food court at the mall at lunch, there will be plenty of
people around, and you'll have no "expectation" of privacy, legally or
practically. But if you're walking down an empty street in a quiet part of
town, you will expect your nose-picking to be private, although you might
have no legal right to expect it to be private.  

Also, note Tom's Kyoto story.  There are social expectations of privacy
even in crowds.  You don't plunk down in the food court next to a couple
talking and stare at them, taking in their conversation.  You don't have a
formal "expectation" of privacy, but it would be darned nice if people
would respect it.


-Matt Jensen
 http://mattjensen.com
 http://NewsBlip.com
 Seattle