Thought I’d share this great video from the Data Protection Commission of Ireland:
3 Likes
Cc:
3 Likes
The problem with this argument is, it is not consent. People need to be able to move around in order to survive and thrive. When people move around for necessity, it is wrong to assume they have consented to having their privacy violated. Similar is true online when people are pressured to hit the “I agree” button even when they strongly disagree. They accept the situation for what it is, but they haven’t consented.
“Implied consent” in the context of privacy is (often) a false argument that rationalizes intrusive surveillance and data collection, and places blame for loss of privacy on its victims. Consent is only rightly implied when someone freely and voluntarily lets themselves be subject to something.
I guess the real problem is the world has become hostile (and always has been to varying degrees), and in this information/AI age people are being forced to receive increasing amounts of indignity and abuse. As people who value privacy, our job is to stop and reverse the hostile trends of intrusive surveillance and data collection.
2 Likes
You’re allowed to film in public spaces without consent, so you might end up in the news as someone just walking by. And if you’re in focus, consent is only required for commercial use. Consent is probably the wrong word to use here, but in public spaces, you shouldn’t have any expectations of privacy.
I’ll skip over the legal parts because those laws depend on jurisdiction, and I care more about moral/immoral than legal/illegal.
As you suggest, appearing on the news or someone’s photography is a risk people take when being present in a public space. People shouldn’t hold confidential/private meetings in a public space because of the chances of being overheard or observed by bystanders, competitors, police, etc.
But there is a difference between non-intrusive photography and news video recording, and turning public spaces into intrusive mass surveillance spaces. About expectation of privacy, people shouldn’t expect to be able to hold confidential/private meetings in a public space, but they have a right not to be constantly violated by facial recognition, microphones, ALPR, financial surveillance, location tracking (wifi, cellular etc.) and arrays of cameras.
It’s ironic that society would take forceful action against a stalker who follows an innocent person while carrying a camera or video recorder, but they’re somehow okay with being stalked en-masse by all this surveillance. Or perhaps they don’t recognize they are being stalked.
Closer to the topic of privacy being about protecting others, I wish people adopt better photography etiquette. Some cultures I have experienced have general higher level of etiquette than others. Before digital cameras and smartphones, I remember it used to be considered rude to point a camera at someone or to take someone’s photo without their consent. Now this happens all the time 
1 Like