BillP
Rangefinder General
Given the recent debates here about the "right", moral or legal, to personal privacy in public places, I think this makes interesting and timely reading.
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-559597
The very concept of privacy is by no means universally agreed or acknowledged. When states are going to these lengths to intrude upon their citizens, it is frankly laughable that we are sitting in our virtual armchairs debating the rights and wrongs of street photography. We are all - including the professionals - amateurs in this regard.
Regards,
Bill
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-559597
The very concept of privacy is by no means universally agreed or acknowledged. When states are going to these lengths to intrude upon their citizens, it is frankly laughable that we are sitting in our virtual armchairs debating the rights and wrongs of street photography. We are all - including the professionals - amateurs in this regard.
Regards,
Bill
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Well, I know something about quite a number of European countries, and I can only say that the accuracy of this list is not very confidence-inspiring. In fact rather ridiculous. (not because the Netherlands is low - all other European countries are all over the place as well.) I might add that I am formed by the sixties and an anarchist at heart - I am rather sensitive to privacy infringement.....
M. Valdemar
Well-known
Unfortunately, the USA has it's citizens under the most intense surveillance of any country in history. Anyone who doesn't realize it's a police state has his head in the sand.
Every cent you make, everything you do, everywhere you go is databased, reported, archived, cross-referenced, etc etc. All your communications are subject to electronic filtering.
If Stalin had possessed the electronic tools that the United States routinely uses to control it's citizens, he would have run the world. In hindsight, he was a neophyte.
Every cent you make, everything you do, everywhere you go is databased, reported, archived, cross-referenced, etc etc. All your communications are subject to electronic filtering.
If Stalin had possessed the electronic tools that the United States routinely uses to control it's citizens, he would have run the world. In hindsight, he was a neophyte.
bsdunek
Old Guy with a Corgi
I too, find the information questionable. The U.S. is not listed under the "Constitutional Protection" header. Certainly we have the best constitution in the world. It's just that our government sees less and less incentive to follow it. IMHO
foto_fool
Well-known
Thanks for the link, Bill. I took the time to read the entire article (home today taking care of a sick kid). Jaap's comment on the "accuracy of the list" is interesting. Is he concerned becasue he disagrees with where his country ranked? I found that the report was internally consistent and that each country was fairly evaluated according to the stated "methodology". I found it to be highly "accurate" according to these criteria.
On the other hand, I completely disagree with some of the value judgements implicit in the report, and its many blind spots. The authors implicitly state that data collection and "surveillance" of any sort are a violation of basic human rights. I also am a libertarian and a child of the 60's (at my age the two are no longer inconsistent), but I find this assertion debatable to the point of being ludicrous.
Putting this potential debate aside, the most glaring omission is one of intent and effect. There is no discussion of whether, or to what extent, data collection and surveillance are being used by any of these countries to stifle dissent or to deprive citizens of liberty or property. I would argue that this is what a "right to privacy" should mean.
Comparing this definition of privacy with our discussions here on RFF of the transactional respects we do or don't show each other in street photography is comparing apples and oranges. The former is structural and goes to the heart of what it means to be a citizen within a particular society. The latter is social and personal. As individuals, we tend to conflate our desire to be free from structural constraints with our desire to be anonymous to our neighbors.
On the other hand, I completely disagree with some of the value judgements implicit in the report, and its many blind spots. The authors implicitly state that data collection and "surveillance" of any sort are a violation of basic human rights. I also am a libertarian and a child of the 60's (at my age the two are no longer inconsistent), but I find this assertion debatable to the point of being ludicrous.
Putting this potential debate aside, the most glaring omission is one of intent and effect. There is no discussion of whether, or to what extent, data collection and surveillance are being used by any of these countries to stifle dissent or to deprive citizens of liberty or property. I would argue that this is what a "right to privacy" should mean.
Comparing this definition of privacy with our discussions here on RFF of the transactional respects we do or don't show each other in street photography is comparing apples and oranges. The former is structural and goes to the heart of what it means to be a citizen within a particular society. The latter is social and personal. As individuals, we tend to conflate our desire to be free from structural constraints with our desire to be anonymous to our neighbors.
DavidH
Overweight and over here
M. Valdemar said:
Actually I think the UK is well ahead in this regard
Though the UK govt takes its gathered data and send it to Iowa for some reason...where it gets 'lost'. Seriously. The personal details of some 25Million people...
If you want a laugh then go check out the Guardian and Times newspaper archives for pieces on UK and privacy - the amount of data gathering (including automatically tracking vehicles) and which groups and organisations are then entitled to access this information, is stunning.
<insert dictator of choice here> was a pathetic wannabee by comparison.
foto_fool
Well-known
bsdunek said:
Perhaps ours the briefest and most flexible constitution in the world - I'm not sure that makes it the "best". And there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution - the 4th Ammendment prohibitions against "illegal search and seizure" form the sole basis for constitutional case law regarding privacy.
By most measures South Africa has the "best" constitution in the world today - at least in terms of comprehensiveness and explication. Looking around the world it is evident that having a "good" constitution is no guarantee of good governance or social justice.
Last edited:
wgerrard
Veteran
I'm unsure what we are supposed to make of this. Is the act of recording data itself an invasion of privacy? Is privacy, in fact, a right, or is it a social convention that varies across cultures, much like the distance people stand from each other while conversing?
Am I more deprived of my rights when the IRS stores my financial data digitally rather than on a piece of paper in a cabinet in a warehouse?
When most of us did all of our grocery shopping at an independent neighborhood grocery, was our privacy assaulted because the guy running it knew what we bought and what we ate? How is that more benign than Walmart knowing what we buy?
As for surveillance, I've spent some time in the UK and cameras are, in fact, everywhere. However, I never paid them any attention and never saw them as interfering with my privacy. My behavior didn't change. They are, after all, in public places. Besides, I don't understand the difference between being seen by any number of strangers while I'm out and about versus being caught by a camera. Making your way, for example, down Oxford Street and complaining about the cameras strikes me as a bit silly. (If I had to leave the U.S., I'd happily live in the UK -- which lacks a written constitution -- with no regrets. Heck, if somone wants to fund me, I'll start looking for a flat.)
The world, however, is becoming one big village and more and more people have access to data about us that they might use in ways we condemn. While it's futile, and more than a bit of Ludditism, to imagine the collection and sharing of data is going to go away, we do need legislation that recognizes our ownership of data about our lives and gives us visibility into its use and legal redress when it is abused.
Am I more deprived of my rights when the IRS stores my financial data digitally rather than on a piece of paper in a cabinet in a warehouse?
When most of us did all of our grocery shopping at an independent neighborhood grocery, was our privacy assaulted because the guy running it knew what we bought and what we ate? How is that more benign than Walmart knowing what we buy?
As for surveillance, I've spent some time in the UK and cameras are, in fact, everywhere. However, I never paid them any attention and never saw them as interfering with my privacy. My behavior didn't change. They are, after all, in public places. Besides, I don't understand the difference between being seen by any number of strangers while I'm out and about versus being caught by a camera. Making your way, for example, down Oxford Street and complaining about the cameras strikes me as a bit silly. (If I had to leave the U.S., I'd happily live in the UK -- which lacks a written constitution -- with no regrets. Heck, if somone wants to fund me, I'll start looking for a flat.)
The world, however, is becoming one big village and more and more people have access to data about us that they might use in ways we condemn. While it's futile, and more than a bit of Ludditism, to imagine the collection and sharing of data is going to go away, we do need legislation that recognizes our ownership of data about our lives and gives us visibility into its use and legal redress when it is abused.
Last edited: