The funniest response I've read to this type of reasoning went something like this: a family gathering; topic of privacy came up; boomer-type trotted out the "nothing to hide" line; younger relative asked them if they enjoy a particular type of sexual intercourse with their spouse; red faces and looks of horror; the asker reminded everyone that privacy is important and it doesn't mean one is doing anything wrong.

▲

veec_cas_tant 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Isn’t the easy reply here that there is no expectation of privacy in public, unlike in one’s home? There are tens, or more likely hundreds of millions of cameras recording outside in the United States.

	▲	Walf 29 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's not that simple. If you were in public, going about your business, but someone followed you around perpetually, noting down everything you did, you should feel stalked and harassed. That is exactly what these machines are doing. Being in public means that you're not hiding any one part of your behaviour, but nor are you telling everyone where you've been and where you're going, etc.
	▲	skeeter2020 6 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		it's not about privacy in the moment, courts have already said flock is equivalent to warrantless tracking; it's more about privacy in all time-based aspects of your life: where you go, when you go there and the multitude of second order details you can easily infer from this.

▲

Analemma_ an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The underlying principle here is that secrecy and privacy are not the same thing. The famous illustrative example is that when you’re taking a shit it’s no secret what you’re doing in there, but most people still prefer not to be watched when they do it.

▲

rationalist an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

"Does your phone have a passcode? What are you hiding? Can I look through your text messages?"