Google Street View

[DavidOdden]

If a wall or a fence can only provide < 100% privacy by its physical limitations, what is to prevent me from putting a camera on a stick or getting down underneath a woman (on public property) who is wearing a skirt and photographing her voyueristically against her consent? Couldn't the same argument made for the fense be made for the skirt?

When you invite a person onto your property, there are certain implicit agreements regarding what you will and won't do, and within that realm lies the normal agreement to not invade the privacy of others (although that agreement is certainly defeasible). If, as a voyeur, you can't abide by that agreement, then you should stay home or whatever. "Public property" doesn't pose any significant additional problems, other than the matter of defining what is sufficiently unacceptable conduct that nobody can be reasonably assumed to have agreed to it. Thus the upskirt question falls within the ambit of the public fornication question -- it's conduct that's tolerable only when clearly agreed to by all affected parties. (See "Thought Control--Part III")

There is no reaonable construction of human nature and behavior whereby being on "public property" carries with it an implicit agreement to not perceive or look at another person's property or to not photograph another person's property. On private property, you might explicitly require your guests to not look at or photograph the neighbors, but that isn't something that can can be subsumed under the notion of an implicit agreement. In lieu of an agreement to not act in a certain way, you can act in any way that doesn't violate the rights of another person.

[JeffS]

However, if someone goes to pains to circumvent her reasonable attempts at safeguarding her privacy, then she would be right in complaining. (you, in your previous post, arguing that privacy is a right)

Of course I should expect my walls to protect my right to do what I want to do in my own home without being observed. Doing so makes me happy, and I have a right to pursue my own happiness. (you, in your last post, arguing that privacy is a right)

Note that in the first sentence you quoted the word "right" does not occur. Note that in neither the second nor third sentences does the word "privacy" occur. Note that in none of the sentences I wrote does the claim, "a right to privacy exists" occur.

Really, Jake.

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm arguing that I have a right to do all those things, and in fact I have the right to do everything possible and imaginable, as long as I don't violate anyone else's right to life, liberty and property.

That's not much different from what I wrote. Is my body not my property? When you observe it without my permission, are you not violating my right to do with my property what I wish, including hiding it from you?

Again, you have the right to do everything possible and imaginable, as long as you don't violate anyone else's right to life, liberty and property, including what you are describing (doing your best to keep secrets).

Is a secret not property?

If actual force or the threat of force is involved, then all the consequences of such a crime (including the psychological ones), count in determining the penalty for the crime. But psychological pain has nothing to do with determining what is and what isn't a crime. A crime is that act which violates someone's right to life, liberty and property.

If someone hurts me psychologically, have they violated my rights? Should they be punished?

As for the right to pursue your own happiness, you don't have the right to infringe on my liberty while doing so.

As long as I don't infringe upon your liberty while doing so, do I have a right to pursue my own happiness?

Nope. The problem of who has the right to be in a given space is easily determined by property rights. If there's a disagreement about who should be in that space I was headed for, the property owner can decide. (or set up rules of conduct). Of course, with public property, the owner has no ability to decide (because it lacks a conscious mind), so we have another unsolvable problem on our hands.

And if they both have the right to be in that space? The question is not so much about who has a right to be there as it is about whether the actions of one can be considered aggression or not. The question asks whether aggression to circumvent is aggression. If someone broke into my house, I would certainly meet them with aggression. The trespasser has chosen a path, I will aggressively circumvent that path. Is this not aggression? Whether my aggression is moral or not is not in question.

[Jake]

Is my body not my property?

Your body may be your property, but the photons you are so freely allowing to emit/reflect from its surface are not your property...

...Unless you want to lay claim to dead skin cells, nail clippings, lost hair, and excrement too.

When you observe it without my permission, are you not violating my right to do with my property what I wish, including hiding it from you?

No, I am not.

[JeffS]

Your body may be your property, but the photons you are so freely allowing to emit/reflect from its surface are not your property...

Presumably the heat emanating from my body is also not my property? In which case, it would be entirely moral for someone to siphon that heat from me, as long as they didn't actually kill me, violate my other property, or take my liberty? They can make me uncomfortable, but as long as these three inviolates are secured, more power to 'em?

...Unless you want to lay claim to dead skin cells, nail clippings, lost hair, and excrement too.

Why would I not? Once it dies, or departs my body, it's no longer mine? It would be perfectly moral for anyone to take a part of your body which you willingly had removed?

No, I am not.

Pointed, succinct, yet wholly unsatisfying. Why not? Do I not have a right to hide things from you? Do I not have a right to pursue my happiness in not letting you see all my secrets? When you act with the purpose of seeing my secrets have you not initiated force against me? Recognize I'm not talking about incidental observation - I'm talking about you taking action to circumvent my happiness.

Edited May 20, 2009 by JeffS

[agrippa1]

So, if someone parks outside your house on a public road, with a telephoto lens, and waits for your wife to undress in front of an open window, it's okay for him to post those photos on the internet? Is it okay for him to sell them? Is it okay to make money from ads by posting them gratis on the internet?

Is it okay for an individual to sell photos of your home? Your car? Your dog?

I think this issue goes beyond simple privacy and goes into the use of your property (including yourself, etc.) for their profit without compensating you for the value of your image.

[Jake_Ellison]

So, if someone parks outside your house on a public road, with a telephoto lens, and waits for your wife to undress in front of an open window, it's okay for him to post those photos on the internet? Is it okay for him to sell them? Is it okay to make money from ads by posting them gratis on the internet?

Is it okay for an individual to sell photos of your home? Your car? Your dog?

I think this issue goes beyond simple privacy and goes into the use of your property (including yourself, etc.) for their profit without compensating you for the value of your image.

The issue goes nowhere near far enough to reach privacy, let alone does it go beyond that. The issue stops with individual rights to life, liberty and property.

I think you are confusing what an image is: it is not a part of your body, no one is stealing anything from you (no, not even your soul), when they photograph you. Your image is composed of light that comes from the Sun, and after it bounce off of you, emanates away from you.

The idea that I am not allowed to capture information from all the light that is in my car, or on my property, using a digital camera, and then do with that information as I please, is a clear violation of my rights. You do not own that light, and you most certainly don't own the information that is contained in it, just because the information is about your own appearance.

And if they both have the right to be in that space?

In an objective system of rights, nu such conflict can exist. Since all land can have a single owner, no two people have equal rights to any part of it.

I will aggressively circumvent

That's obviously a contradiction in terms. You can either circumvent him, or attack him. You can't do both.

[blackdiamond]

Note that in the first sentence you quoted the word "right" does not occur.

Sorry to barge in, but the word 'right' does occur in the sentence that was quoted (I'm not sure why you both seem to agree that it doesn't).

The quoted sentence was: "However, if someone goes to pains to circumvent her reasonable attempts at safeguarding her privacy, then she would be right in complaining."

Perhaps you missed its occurrence because you think its usage here is different from the concept of rights; but it is not.

(I'm just trying to follow this interesting discussion; thanks).

[tito]

Suppose Google started a new service, street audio. They drove down public streets and recorded what they heard. At the time, you were in your front garden singing loudly, so that it could be heard from the street.

It is you who broadcast this audio, by means of auditory vibrations through the air, to Google's microphone. If you soundproofed your property, and Google drilled a hole through your soundproofing, this would clearly be a violation of your rights. Or if you were singing quietly enough only for people in your property to hear (if this were possible), and Google poked their microphone over your fence, this too would violate your property rights.

The same is true of streetview. Your property and its contents act as a filtering reflector. Light hits your property and is reflected (broadcast) with certain colours absorbed by the matter - giving a visual image. This broadcast of electro-magnetic waves goes onto the street, where anybody can access. Aside from building fences or high walls, you can't demand that people do not detect this broadcast with eyes or electronic equipment (charged coupled devices that produce an image in a digital camera) - any more than you can plant a tree in your garden and demand that people in the street don't inhale the oxygen it produces.

[blackdiamond]

Suppose Google started a new service, street audio. They drove down public streets and recorded what they heard. At the time, you were in your front garden singing loudly, so that it could be heard from the street.

It is you who broadcast this audio...

True. But just because you don't mind a few passers-by listening to you singing does not mean that you also don't mind being thrust on this global "stage" for millions of people to hear you sing.

Can they also make a (free) youtube video of you singing in your garden if they wish so that people can freely laugh at your terrible voice?

[DavidOdden]

But just because you don't mind a few passers-by listening to you singing does not mean that you also don't mind being thrust on this global "stage" for millions of people to hear you sing.

Just because you mind a consequence of your incautious actions does not mean that you get to abridge the freedoms of others.

[blackdiamond]

Just because you mind a consequence of your incautious actions does not mean that you get to abridge the freedoms of others.

I don't think there's anything incautious about singing in your own yard without expecting that you're providing international radio entertainment.

[DavidOdden]

I don't think there's anything incautious about singing in your own yard without expecting that you're providing international radio entertainment.

It is forseeable that you can be heard, singing or otherwise. That is why the shower was invented.

[K-Mac]

That's awesome!

[JeffS]

In an objective system of rights, nu such conflict can exist. Since all land can have a single owner, no two people have equal rights to any part of it.

Of course they can. There's nothing in an objective system of rights to preclude me from giving you the right to use my property while simultaneously giving another the same rights. They may not be all inclusive rights, but I could certainly grant you the right to use (for example) my road while allowing many others the same rights; unless you're arguing privately owned toll roads are objectively impossible?

That's obviously a contradiction in terms. You can either circumvent him, or attack him. You can't do both.

It's not a contradiction in terms. The first is an adverb and the second is a verb. I can casually circumvent him, I can quickly circumvent him, I can happily circumvent him, and I can aggressively circumvent him.

The quoted sentence was: "However, if someone goes to pains to circumvent her reasonable attempts at safeguarding her privacy, then she would be right in complaining."

The word "right" does have other meanings. One of those is "suitable, appropriate." This is the sense in which "right" was used in the quoted sentence.

Just because you mind a consequence of your incautious actions does not mean that you get to abridge the freedoms of others.

What about performers? A singer sings a song, can they not charge others to listen? Of course, they could control who gets to hear them by controlling the venue (sing in a theater, not your backyard), but it's completely possible for someone to record their singing from outside the paid venue with high tech audio equipment, clean it up, and burn it to a CD.

An actor relies upon his/her image for their livelihood. It's completely possible to take a picture of someone and have it appear to be moving and talking. Either an impersonator or audio manipulation could be used to make it appear the actor is endorsing something - the actor's image can be used without compensation to the actor.

Are either of these actions moral? If not, how are they different from recording, or taking pictures of, ordinary individuals? If they are, what options does that leave the singer and the actor? Are not their images and voices their property? Since there's no way to secure their voices or their images, should they expect to simply not be secure in being able to continue to produce?

[blackdiamond]

It is forseeable that you can be heard, singing or otherwise. That is why the shower was invented.

I need to have a look at the patent details for the shower.

[blackdiamond]

But also, I wonder if, when Google invents something that can enable one to remotely hear sounds that are very far (actually such instruments do exist), we would consider it incautious and unreasonable to sing in your own shower while demanding/expecting that your singing will not be broadcast on the internet?

Edited May 20, 2009 by blackdiamond