| |
| ▲ | mikestew a day ago | parent [-] | | So the question is, is it legal for me to receive radio emissions that your device freely emits? | | |
| ▲ | tavavex a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The question is, is it legal for you to collect everyone's emissions automatically, process them, derive conclusions from them and sell them to third parties? The assumption that "if doing 1x of something is okay, then surely so is doing 10000x of it fully automatically" has gone unchallenged for too long. We can see the societal implications this has had so far, and it's fully logically consistent to be able to say no to that. Just because I can see you out on the street, broadcasting your visual appearance for the whole world, doesn't mean I should be allowed to record you, analyze your appearance, retain recordings of you forever, automatically track you across the places that many cameras spotted you at and then resell that data to advertising and tech corporations. Small-scale individual recording is okay. Automated mass recording and processing without an extremely convincing reason and thorough limitations and checks should not be. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 a day ago | parent [-] | | As an exercise, write the statute that you think would prevent this behavior. Then, let's poke holes in it. | | |
| ▲ | tavavex a day ago | parent [-] | | "Solve this problem perfectly right now with no edge cases whatsoever, or it's not even worth discussing." The go-to mantra for opposing any complex proposed change. You know, lots of issues in society can't be solved perfectly or on the first try, should we do nothing about those too? There are laws based on ambiguity and discretion, you know. Those seem to work. How about we get anything in place and iron out the kinks later instead of resigning on step one? Making the idea of retaining irrelevant private data even slightly toxic to businesses will already have a chilling effect where your parking app or grocery store will think twice before stuffing every corner of their hard drives with terabytes of surveillance data. And discretion, tests, broad adjectives - that's just the last resort of the legal system. I think that the terms can be defined much more concretely in reality by someone who knows more than me about law. Ask 100 anti-surveillance advocates to choose examples of surveillance from a list and I guarantee that most of them will agree on most answers. Do you believe there's a limitation of reality that prevents the drafting of a law that encompasses at least 90% of the points that people are able to agree on? Can we not distill the actions that make them think 'this is surveillance, but this isn't' into a list of rules? | | |
| ▲ | 15155 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Solve this problem perfectly right now with no edge cases whatsoever, This issue is more like "solve this problem without violating the First Amendment." The United States is not a European regulatory nanny state, despite many left-leaning attempts to make it that way. You seem to be advocating "we have to do something! - something must be better than nothing! Perfect is the enemy of good!" - this is a classic "progressive" ratchet used to slowly abridge freedoms since the founding of this nation. We can certainly pass laws to prevent the government from using this data - no question, case law might also emerge with this effect. However: preventing the private collection of this information is without question prior restraint and therefore unconstitutional. "1x vs 1000x" - How many newspapers am I allowed to publish? Can I now not have CCTV at my business because of your regulatory regime? How do you split these cases out? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | crmd a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | In my opinion it should be unlawful for anyone to receive, store, or process a user’s “emissions” for any purpose that a reasonable user would not anticipate and consent to. For example, misusing bluetooth or wifi pairing broadcasts from a client to track the client or build any type of advertising profile. | | |
| ▲ | itopaloglu83 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Just classify it as wiretapping and mail fraud. That would solve most of the problems. |
|
|
|
