Hacker News Reader

Comment by cle | Hacker News Reader

In the U.S., the argument is that, since you are handing your data to a third party, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Your analogy breaks down under that interpretation.

(I think that argument/precedent is a load of bullshit, but that's a different matter...)

View on HN

> since you are handing your data to a third party, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy

I disagree with that argument. Just because I place information with a third party doesn't mean I shouldn't have an expectation of privacy. People used to have a level of discretion and "minding ones' own business".

> since you are handing your data to a third party, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy

Sure - just like sending a letter, or driving around town...right? We already use third party service providers in the physical world which come with some (legally enforceable) expectations of privacy. Why is the digital domain different?

Well... The major reason that that argument can be made is because of the terms of service/use/agreement and privacy policies. Pretty much every one agrees without thinking, which is where I believe Apple got into some trouble a few years back IIRC.

It has less to do with ToS than it does with legal precedent, though I don't doubt that without legal precedent, it might fall back onto the ToS.

In US people are like, if I am in public and if you have a pen, you can follow me everywhere and write down what ever I do.

It is like, if I am in public and if you have a gun, you can follow me everywhere and shoot me when ever you like.

No you can not.

So please learn from this analogy.

No, the assumption is that you are voluntarily handing over your data. It's more like, if you are in a cafeteria and a friend comes by, then you two begin shouting from one end to the room to the other and at the end demand everybody there to forget whatever you said. Not that any decent person wouldn't... but is still poor judgement and lack of common sense on your part.

To follow with your gun analogy, it's like walking into a police station in a trench coat with your hands in your pockets and yielling "Everybody freeze!" Any decent/professional cop there should strive to put you down without resorting to lethal force... but the situation is a little more nuanced than right vs wrong.

Yeah, I am like, hey dude, follow me, I totally want it.

I just came out so that everyone can follow me. No I did not, I just want to buy some milk, all right?

This is just how messed up American mind is about privacy.

(comment to myself, do not comment on hacker news after having few beers and watching LCK)

I gave you a good example - you can not do what ever it is possible to do.

Hey, I have a gun, I can totally shoot you. Boom!

No I can not, every other person gets unhappy (all right, maybe not all of them).

So how hard is it to transfer this knowledge into another situation?

The fact that I am in your range does not mean you can shoot me, right?

The fact that I am visible to you does not mean that you can create a database of all my doings.

There is major difference between, oh, I saw that dude on the street and I have followed that dude 10 years every day, I know every place he have been.

> The fact that I am in your range does not mean you can shoot me, right?

Wrong. The fact that you are in my range does mean that I could shoot you if I wish. It does not mean that I will do so, but you do not get to decide. What is to stop me, your blind faith in the eventual justice of the cosmic balance?

If you want to make less likely that people shoots you, try to step out of the typical ranges of people you don't trust. It is so sad, because it means you cannot go anymore where all the everymen want to go.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com