Complacency

[Paul Sholtz]

> 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.
 
The problem w/ privacy is that it's a ferociously complex subject, and at
the end of the day, it means something different to pretty much everybody
involved (<--I think we've proven that in the course of this discussion!)

For that reason, I tend to be a fan of property rights over personal data
whenever that model is applicable (it is most appropriate when personal data
is transferred - under contract - in the course of a business transaction).
Property rights affords the individual maximum control over preferences and
there is ample economic evidence to suggest that it saves the business money
over the long run as well.

That said, property rights are not exactly applicable in the
camera/surveillance case, since by definition you can't really apply
property rights to public spaces (nor should you). To address your
legal/social comment, I think the reason the whole legal/4th amendment angle
arose in this discussion is b/c of the context in which the cameras are
being deployed..

Context is EXTREMELY important in any discussion of privacy..

Muncipalities are not setting up cameras on street corners just b/c it seems
like a clever way to spend money.. they are doing it for purposes of law
enforcement and to deter crime (and b/c the technology now exists to make
this preventive measure cheaper than paying human law enforcement officers
to patrol an area). 

The question is whether widespread use of cameras in the public sphere by
law enforcement will really affect a significant social backlash, as you
suggest. Cameras have been widely deployed on roads and freeways for the
better part of a decade, so news stations can broadcast the latest traffic
updates. Has this caused a social backlash or has it caused people to change
their expectations of privacy in the public sphere (on a social level)?

Like I said, the thought of law enforcement watching you everywhere you go
on the streets may be spooky, but it doesn't really seem to be a violation
of the 4th amendment and since I suspect they will try to be somewhat covert
about where the cameras are placed, I'd be surprised if people even *knew*
they were being watched (I think that's 1/2 the point, from law
enforcement's standpoint)

> 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.  

Again - context. If you're walking down an empty street at night, and a
police camera tape records you and its stored in a mega-terabyte database
for 7 years and then deleted and no human ever sees it b/c there was no
crime committed so no one ever bothered to retrieve it from the database,
then did you still have privacy? If a tree falls in a forest and noone hears
it, did it make a sound?

If, on the other hand, it's your friend that secretly tapes you on that
street and then plays it back at your next party in front of 30 people, then
yes - arguably your social expectation of privacy has been breached. Same
holds true if your friend hacks into the law enforcement database and
downloads said video clip for the same purpose.

So the context (purpose) for which the information is gathered and used is
very important.. (as is the security w/ which the information is held)

Remember also that we're talking about deploying cameras in large urban
centers, and that ironically the anonymity the comes w/ modern urban life
(and that is very often confused w/ privacy) is actually just a recent
artifact of the industrial age -- humans have lived for centuries in small
communities where they were not anonymous, but where they nevertheless had
privacy.. You say that there is a social expectation of privacy in crowds,
but in reality it's a social expectation of anonymity - and the two concepts
should not be confused..

> 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.
> 

Again - context. And here, unfortunately we have none. We only know that a
Japanese woman was apparently upset that a picture was being taken of her +
her lover in a public park. Perhaps I'm being overly cynical, but in light
of the Joe/Jill/Jane discussion today - how do we know what this woman's
motives were? Was the man she was w/ really her "actual" significant other?
Or was she fooling around w/ someone else w/o his knowledge? If the latter
case was true, then of course she was upset about the picture b/c Tom could
have been a private investigator hired by her husband! But we don't have
enough information to really use this case as a discussion point about
privacy (since we lack context).

And again - context. If you're sitting in a park and someone walks up to you
and shoves a camera in your face w/o asking, then you just instinctively
know there's something suspicious about their motives (i.e., the context in
which they intend to operate). On the other hand, would the woman have
reacted the same way to a (partially) hidden camera in the park that was
there for purposes of law enforcement? 

Just my $0.02..

Cheers,

Paul Sholtz
http://www.paulsholtz.com