http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic Scott Ferguson grabbed a keyboard and wrote: > 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. > >
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature