Expectation of privacy in public places

[jeff]

Posting a note (without editing) I was forwarded for discussion here. (One of the forwarders said "Orwell was an amateur"):

It's time to blow the lid off this "no expectation of privacy in
public places" argument that judges and law enforcement now spout out
like demented parrots in so many situations.

Technology has rendered that argument meaningless -- unless we
intend to permit a pervasive surveillance slave society to become
our future -- which apparently is the goal among some parties.

It is incredibly disingenuous to claim that cameras (increasingly
tied to face recognition software) and GPS tracking devices (which
could end up being standard in new vehicles as part of their
instrumentation black boxes), etc. are no different than cops
following suspects.

Technology will effectively allow everyone to be followed all of the
time. Unless society agrees that everything you do outside the
confines of your home and office should be available to authorities
on demand -- even retrospectively via archived images and data -- we
are going down an incredibly dangerous hole.

I use the "slimy guy in the raincoat" analogy. Let's say the
government arranged for everyone to be followed at all times in
public by slimy guys in raincoats. Each has a camera and clipboard,
and wherever you go in public, they are your shadow. They keep
snapping photos of where you go and where you look. They're
constantly jotting down the details of your movements. When you go
into your home, they wait outside, ready to start shadowing you
again as soon as you step off your property. Every day, they report
everything they've learned about you to a government database.

Needless to say, most people would presumably feel incredibly
violated by such a scenario, even though it's all taking place in
that public space where we're told that we have no expectation of
privacy.

Technology is creating the largely invisible equivalent of that guy
in the raincoat, ready to tail us all in perpetuity. If we don't
control him, he will most assuredly control us.

See PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Fact Squad - http://www.factsquad.org
URIICA - Union for Representative International Internet Cooperation and Analysis - http://www.uriica.org
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com

Also see:

> http://timesunion.com/AspStories/sto...StoryID=322152
>
> Ruling gives cops leeway with GPS
> Decision allows use of vehicle tracking device without a warrant
>
> By BRENDAN LYONS, Staff writer
> First published: Tuesday, January 11, 2005
>
> In a decision that could dramatically affect criminal investigations
> nationwide, a federal judge has ruled police didn't need a warrant when
> they attached a satellite tracking device to the underbelly of a car
> being driven by a suspected Hells Angels operative.

[Nihilena]

Your deviant thoughts have been noted.

Really, I don't expect any privacy issues to be resolved anytime soon. The people herds don't mind being branded if it doesn't hurt.

It seems like the government becomes more of a self-interested entity every day...
Sorta like SkyNet, except with Dubya v-v
Doubleplus5|_|X0/-, to use vernacular.

[Soldier]

...I fail to see the alarm. The slimy guy in the raincoat would bother me, sure. But that's only because I'd be seeing a slimy guy in a raincoat all the time.

Anybody who wants could do exactly what you described - watch me all the time, make notes of my habits, etc. What do I care? Sure, it might be a bit creepy if it was always in my peripheral vision. But I truly fail to see the problem with it if it's not something that's going to be visible. There's a reason it's called "public".

[Gav]

In the UK 3 people went on trial recently for abusing their access to local council CCTV camera's. They'd been spying on a womens house over a long period of time. If you were that women would you be happy about this? Conisdering that this camera was trained an someone's house and not the street where it was supposed to be; was that camera even being used for the purpose intended? If not what was the point in installing the camera?


It was recently discoverd that hackers had found a way to hack into web enabled CCTV camera's. And so on it goes...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Let's say the
government arranged for everyone to be followed at all times in
public by slimy guys in raincoats. Each has a camera and clipboard,
and wherever you go in public, they are your shadow. They keep
snapping photos of where you go and where you look. They're
constantly jotting down the details of your movements. When you go
into your home, they wait outside, ready to start shadowing you
again as soon as you step off your property. Every day, they report
everything they've learned about you to a government database.

"Everyone"? The trope is fatally flawed on arithmetical grounds alone, since each SGIAR would need his own SGIAR to follow him, and THOSE SGIRs would need THEIR own, etc, etc, etc...

Even if you exempted the SGIRs from surveillance, you'd still need something like 148 million of them, to follow the other 148 million Americans around. A great government job-creation program, perhaps, but it leaves a rather gaping hole in your coverage....

Actually, it's even worse than that, because unless your SGIRs could go without sleep you'd need to have more than one per subject. Even at two shifts you now have 3/4 of the population wearing raincoats and going unobserved themselves, which kind of defeats the whole purpose of the exercise, doesn't it?

[jeff]

The whole point is that, due to monitoring technology, there is now the unprecedented capability to monitor everyone, that was previously impossible via flesh and blood spies (though the Soviets and East Germans did pretty well by making everybody suspect eveyone else). Feel better?

[scrapinpeg]

The thing is, we already do tail people when we think doing so is likely to give us evidence of crimes (not necessarily their own crimes). We follow them from the moment they leave their house till they go to bed. It's a standard, time-honored practice of law enforcement, intelligence and private investigators.

The courts have repeatedly held over many years that you don't have an expectation of privacy in what you do in public. Sorry. If it's something anyone else could see, the authorities are allowed to see it, too.

CCTV and other technologies affect this only as a matter of degree, not of principle.

In other words, your objections have already been noted on several occasions, and have been consistently overruled. You don't have a privacy right that's being infringed, sorry.

[esskreemr]

I think that constant surveillance is a difficult issue to address. There are monitoring devices everywhere. A good example of this is your computer. Nearly everything you do is logged and in many cases tracked. The problem is growing. What point does the constant monitoring infringe on the person's right to privacy? This is a far-reaching issue with no easy answer.

My concern is when the data accumulated becomes a matter of law. What is and what isn't admissable as evidence. If it is collected without the proper warrant, should it be admissable?

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

In other words, your objections have already been noted on several occasions, and have been consistently overruled. You don't have a privacy right that's being infringed, sorry.

Modification: You DO have a privacy right, BUT it's being infringed.
Precedence, actually. And since we continue to allow the slight infringements, it will continue and become more practiced.

Technology is not our friend, although we marvel in it's proliferation.

[esskreemr]

I'm waiting for somebody to create a field that effects photosensitive electronics. Imagine walking down the street and appearing as a blur to cameras. Imagine the reaction by those who like the ability to monitor people 24/7. The implications are most interesting indeed. When they start implementing laws that make circumvention of these "incidental" monitoring devices illegal, will that raise a red flag?

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

I'm waiting for somebody to create a field that effects photosensitive electronics. Imagine walking down the street and appearing as a blur to cameras. Imagine the reaction by those who like the ability to monitor people 24/7. The implications are most interesting indeed. When they start implementing laws that make circumvention of these "incidental" monitoring devices illegal, will that raise a red flag?

Enemy of the State. Remember that movie with Hackman and Smith? Much of the resources used to find and follow them in the chase weren't science fiction, but technologies that have been in place for years.

[scrapinpeg]

[quote=Maeve_Mari]Modification: You DO have a privacy right, BUT it's being infringed.
Precedence, actually. QUOTE]


I don't think that's right. I'm fairly certain that the law is that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

[Maeve_Mari]

On topic somewhat, an excellent novel that creates a conservative monitored society related to this topic is called, The Handmaiden's Tale by Margaret Atwood. Eerie, but sometimes not far enough away to still be science fiction.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

{snip}
When they start implementing laws that make circumvention of these "incidental" monitoring devices illegal, will that raise a red flag?

In many states, it's illegal to use a radar detector or radar jammer in a car, and it's also illegal to obscure clear view of a license plate.

Not a whole lot of uproar.

--Philistine

[jeff]

I'm aware that courts have judged on the basis scrapinpeg (what does that handle mean, anyway?) mentioned -- I figure it's worth discussing anyway, especially since it's now so much more feasible to monitor everyone's behavior (including listening to your conversations whether in the open or behind closed doors).

Besides web traffic, there's also cell phone conversation. Is that private by law?

Always worth reading: Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by jeff

{snip}
Besides web traffic, there's also cell phone conversation. Is that private by law?

Generally, yes. It's illegal to intercept cell phone transmissions.

Always worth reading: Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

But isn't that putting the rabbit in the hat?

The 4th Amendment only protects people: (1) in their person; (2) in their houses; and (3) in their papers and effects.

Nothing at all about their actions in the public arena.

The problem of technology making ordinary people's lives more and more transparent to the Government (and to businesses) concerns me--but I don't really see a 4th amendment issue here--and the Courts have been pretty uniform about strictly limiting the 4th Amendment to its stated terms.

I'm all for data privacy and personal privacy--but I don't think the Constitution is really the way to do it (additionally because the 4th Amend. doesn't reach the actions of private parties).

--Philistine

[scrapinpeg]

My handle is a reference to another of my pastimes, motorcycle racing. Scraping footpegs is something that happens when you lean the bike over pretty far (which shouldn't happen if you're getting your knee down, thereby indicating a lack of proficiency on my part).


With respect to cell phone conversations, these are protected by the Fourth Amendment, and can only be intercepted pursuant to an eavesdropping warrant, after a showing that (1) there is probable cause that evidence pertaining to a short list of enumerated crimes is likely to be intercepted over that particular instrument, (2) other investigative methods have been tried and are not likely to succeed in getting that evidence, and (3) any eavesdropping will be minimized to ensure that only pertinent conversations are intercepted. Wiretaps are not common. They require a lot of manpower and constant judicial supervision. Wiretap cases receive the highest degree of scrutiny of any law enforcement action, and even a reasonable harmless bending of very strict rules will result in all the evidence being thrown out. Unless you're using your phone to commit crimes, it is very likely that they're not listening to you.

[Maeve_Mari]

[quote=scrapinpeg]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Modification: You DO have a privacy right, BUT it's being infringed.
Precedence, actually. QUOTE]


I don't think that's right. I'm fairly certain that the law is that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

Best I could find related to any expectation to privacy was this item: (frankly I was surprised (read: disappointed) I couldn't find more!)

The Code of Fair Information Practices (1973) identifies the right to (1) know if personal information is being, or has been, collected, (2) know what information is collected and how it is used, (3) prevent any use of the information without your consent, (4) correct any inaccurate or incomplete information, and (5) hold the information-holder accountable for the accuracy and security of the information.

NOTICE: clearly state what personal information has been or is being collected, by whom, and how it is used, shared, collected, and protected
CHOICE: obtain consent for any use of the information
ACCESS: allow you to correct any inaccurate or incomplete information, and to delete information
ENFORCEMENT: hold the information-holder accountable for publishing & following fair practices, and for data security

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

My handle is a reference to another of my pastimes, motorcycle racing. Scraping footpegs is something that happens when you lean the bike over pretty far (which shouldn't happen if you're getting your knee down, thereby indicating a lack of proficiency on my part).


With respect to cell phone conversations, these are protected by the Fourth Amendment, and can only be intercepted pursuant to an eavesdropping warrant, after a showing that (1) there is probable cause that evidence pertaining to a short list of enumerated crimes is likely to be intercepted over that particular instrument, (2) other investigative methods have been tried and are not likely to succeed in getting that evidence, and (3) any eavesdropping will be minimized to ensure that only pertinent conversations are intercepted. Wiretaps are not common. They require a lot of manpower and constant judicial supervision. Wiretap cases receive the highest degree of scrutiny of any law enforcement action, and even a reasonable harmless bending of very strict rules will result in all the evidence being thrown out. Unless you're using your phone to commit crimes, it is very likely that they're not listening to you.

Doesn't the Patriot Act modify even this protection? As I understand the new Act, there is not any need to show probable cause or provide a warrant and/or notification of the interception.