My issue is this. Or, more specifically, I think the actual privacy invasion doesn't come from the use of cameras, it comes from the use of databases.
I honestly don't care even a little if I happen to appear in (or even are the subject of) a random photo taken by a regular person. I care a lot if I appear in a commercially-operated snapshot/video.
The difference is that a regular person probably isn't going to include that photo/video and related metadata in a database where it will be combined with the contents of other databases and weaponized against me.
Yes, I know they may upload it to Facebook and such, where it is weaponized. That does bother me, but I choose to ignore that part except to make sure that my friends and family don't do it.
> combined with the contents of other databases and weaponized against me.
what does weaponizing mean here? Because i do believe it is a hypothetical threat that most don't actually see as a real threat. The only scenario is that it acts as evidence for you being in a specific location/time, when it is inconvenient for you to admit to being there.
"Because i do believe it is a hypothetical threat that most don't actually see as a real threat."
In another of today's HN stories, 'For advertising: Firefox now collects user data by default', I made almost the same point. If a majority of the citizenry is indifferent and or sees no threat then the politics will not change, no new laws or regulations will be introduced.
Moreover, with no concerted opposition or action the status quo will only be reinforced—thus, by default, those who've vested interests gain additional political power to further ensure there's no change.
What I mean by weaponizing is that it's used to do things like target me for advertising, adjust credit ratings, set insurance rates, and even get a job with certain companies.
imagine if you're a closeted homosexual caught in a photo kissing another member of the same sex, and you live in a locality where that puts your life in danger. imagine you live in a theocracy and someone catches you without your head scarf.
THAT is weaponization.
Your examples aren't wrong but the stakes of losing control of our data are so much higher than you're imagining.
I saw a post on Reddit how someone in Kenya took a still image of 2 men kissing from an elevator camera video file and posted on social media for it to go viral
Seems dangerous
"I have nothing to hide" makes sense to me - except sometimes you don't know what you have to hide, or it can change after the fact
Absolutely, but I've learned from experience that the more extreme examples tend to get dismissed pretty quickly for various reasons.
The examples I used are ones that affect pretty much everybody and, more importantly, are directly relevant to me. Since I was commenting about my own personal situation, I thought it prudent to limit my response to that subset.
But you're right -- there are many layers to this onion, and some are far worse than others.
It amazes me that people think of adverts as benign. They are one of the largest industries on the planet whose entire purpose is to brainwash you into buying something you wouldn't
There's a reason they spend so much on things like facial recognition, they will take more money from you than they spend.
> I care a lot if I appear in a commercially-operated snapshot/video.
This is where likeness rights come into place. A commercial entity can't use your image as an endorsement of their product or in marketing materials without your consent, which is why many production companies err on the side of making sure they vet every face in every image of their marketing material.
> The difference is that a regular person probably isn't going to include that photo/video and related metadata in a database where it will be combined with the contents of other databases and weaponized against me.
As you said in the next paragraph, this is impossible to prevent without stripping people of their copyrights to use their work however they please, including by sharing on social media or uploading to a extremely value-oriented service (like Google Photos) that only provides their services for free/cheap because of the value they get from being able to "improve the product" using user content.
I don't see how likeness rights apply. I'm not talking about my image being used in marketing materials.
> this is impossible to prevent without stripping people of their copyrights to use their work
That's not a copyright issue. Copyright allows you to restrict how others use your works, it says nothing about how you use your works.
I think you're talking about free speech rights here, and free speech rights have never been, will never be, and shouldn't be, absolute. There are many cases where those rights (like all rights) need to be balanced against other contradictory rights.
And some countries at least pretend that privacy rights are stronger vs. the right to publish photos that are not marketing/advertising although I'm sure those rights are broken many thousands of times a day. The US does not except in very specific circumstances--including for said marketing/advertising or circumstances where you had a reasonable expectation of privacy (or misrepresentation).
That depends on what your concern is. A half-naked photo (which wouldn't bother me, but for the sake of argument...) might be more damaging short term, but the other, when combined with all the other data collection, is more damaging long term.
If you think of the processed film strip as a rudimentary database, a chronolgically organized record of images, you can see how it aided in productization. On the other hand, it's also clear that computers are eons ahead in that capacity.
I honestly don't care even a little if I happen to appear in (or even are the subject of) a random photo taken by a regular person. I care a lot if I appear in a commercially-operated snapshot/video.
The difference is that a regular person probably isn't going to include that photo/video and related metadata in a database where it will be combined with the contents of other databases and weaponized against me.
Yes, I know they may upload it to Facebook and such, where it is weaponized. That does bother me, but I choose to ignore that part except to make sure that my friends and family don't do it.