Re: Heartbleed
On 19/04/14 16:51, Tom Furie wrote:> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 02:33:43PM
+1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 19/04/14 07:55, Joe wrote:
>
>>> As is the light originating inside peoples' homes and passing out
>>> of their windows. In which case it is arguable that it is
>>> perfectly acceptable to collect and record that light with a
>>> camera without asking the permission of those who own the home
>>> and/or who have modified the light...
>>
>> Most countries don't provide legislative protection from the gaze
>> of people passing by. For reasons of sanity, and something to do
>> with the concept of free will (and personal responsibility).
>
> There is a very large difference between the gaze of passers-by and
> actively attempting to see something, especially where recording
> equipment is involved.
Yes. And in most cases the legislation reflects that. i.e. it's legal to
photograph you sunning yourself through you window - if I take the
picture from the street (public place) - but not if I use a telescopic
lens. Not dissimilar from the difference between recording wireless
broadcasts and recording the (resonant) response from wireless equipment
when you transmit a high power signal at it. Note that in some places
it's perfectly legal for an individual to WARdrive, and in some cases
the local police have done so as "community relations" - but when a
Google Maps car does the same thing the courts decide it's punishable
with a fine.
Regards of the medium or means - it seems the individual is arguing that
what they do in public space is private. Whereas I propose that what you
do behind curtains or a faraday cage *is* private[*1] - what you do in
public space, or on the networks and resources of others is not.
[*1] private as in "on private property", not as in "I don't wish to
share". There is a belief that any gathering of information without the
express permission of the individual is "invasive". When that belief
extends to information that is publicly *disseminated* that belief is
oxymoronic. "unwanted" != "invasive". Taking DNA samples from me *is*
invasive (it invades my personal space), taking DNA samples from cells I
drop in public spaces *is not* invasive (it's just creepy).
>
> Cheers, Tom
>
That's not to say I have nothing to hide (I wear pants and use
curtains), just that I don't believe pissing up a rope or relying on
mind over matter are productive exercises.
Kind regards.
Reply to: