The idea of privacy has been thoroughly frustrated. Today, there's no expectation of privacy any more, let alone “reasonable expectation of privacy”. Expecting privacy has become unreasonable by definition.
*in the US that is. Basically everywhere else, esp. Europe, has been moving into the complete opposite direction here. There is _more_ privacy rights - and recourse, like the right to delete - then there has been at any point in the past.
The geographical naming rights is one such thing. Anybody anywhere can make any kind of cheese, but one cannot say the cheese is parmesian (or any other given example) cheese without being located in a certain region. There was a famouse case where a cheese maker in itally opened a new factory on the other sside of town which happened to be across the lambardi river, and suddenly they were no longer able to say that cheese was whatever kind of cheese...
That is just one example of many... why legal fictions are bad arguments in Europe, and don't work internationally. One cannot demand other people unsee things they have seen (wipe their brain memory), and so it goes it's equally unjust to demand other people delete photos of them they have seen and recorded in photos.
It's a lot more nuanced than that, and in some cases the privacy ideas are fully justified, but you get the idea.... there cannot be absolutism in either direction.
should they not have the right to protect their trademark?
What does that mean? What is a legal fuction?
You have a reasonable right to privacy, e.g., in your home.
We practically can't expect people to do without a smartphone. It's how people pay bills, bank, access weather information, etc. And since it's the most-used path, it's also the best-maintained path. Non-smartphone alternatives have already rotted. Have you tried calling into half of those bills you pay via QR code instead of just scanning the code? Try it sometime.
Instead of telling people to just go live on a mountain monastery in Tibet, we could instead simply eat our cake AND have it by just regulating this stuff. Pass privacy laws. Fine people who break them. Samsung, Google, etc will comply rather than not continue to bathe in our ad revenue.
We don’t even see the TV’s home screen. Just power on the Xbox/Apple TV/whatever and HDMI CEC turns everything on and sets inputs.
LG is notorious for this: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/lg-sm...
In the end, it would appear that you are mixing a little bit of truth with a whole lot of urban legend.
I believe parent's point is: no, one cannot. One cannot live in a (modern Western urban) society and not have a smartphone.
The people who do are now living in a different society, where, among other things:
- they have to plan to stop at a bank to take out physical cash
- they have to schedule their days in an entirely different method from their peers with smartphones
- they are less connected to opportunities and access to government and private services because those services come via smart devices and assume smart device ownership
Not to put too fine a point on it: there are restaurants that give you a QR code instead of a paper menu now. Are you and I living in the same society if I can order food there and you can't?
I think we need to stop calling things "not possible" just because they take effort and lifestyle changes to accomplish.
Perhaps we are just quibbling on definitions if we're arguing about whether being homeless counts as living in the same society as those with a permanent address.
The meta point is: government regulates housing because it's something "everybody" (modulo outliers) does: live in a house. If "everybody" (modulo outliers) owns a smartphone and smartphone ownership is assumed for full societal participation... We probably need to regulate it.
This is like the recycling debate all over again. Fundamentally we agree with you; littering is bad, the diminishing of privacy is bad, and none of us should feel hopeless about a situation we are capable of changing.
But consider the average person, not me or you or the hackers. Someone who opts for convenience, not "mindful engagement" for the slightest of interactions with the world. They do not care. Fundamentally they cannot be made to care, even if we show them posters of the Earth burning or make them hear about the Snowden leaks. They consider themselves to be powerless, and will not consider an alternative unless it is as convenient as what they're addicted to now. They're not going to buy respectful TVs because they're not the cheap ones. They're not going to buy respectful phones because it doesn't have the little Apple logo on the back that their friends love so much. The average person literally cannot be made to care unless we make privacy-respecting software easier to use than spyware.
This point is key.
I don't use an Android instead of a Pinephone because I don't care. I use an Android because Pinephone sucks right now, and I can't be hacking on the device I need to rely on to schedule my bank payments and call the emergency services if I fall in a ravine. That device has to be five-nines trustworthy.
The solution is going to have to be make Pinephone suck less. That's the only way to mass adoption and actually changing the landscape.
Music piracy didn't get its back broken by a sudden global attack of conscience. It got its back broken by iTunes making it more convenient to get music-to-portable-device than running a torrent server.
Huh? Music piracy is easier and better now than it ever has been. Every music label releases all their music, officially and for free, on YouTube. You can just download it directly from the official source.
It's like Napster, if every music publisher had maintained an official account offering every song they owned, and paid commercial services to ensure that their Napster presence was up to date.
Forget the average person - even as a technically adept person who has tried to "mindfully engage" with technology and minimize his use of it as much as is reasonably possible, the way our societies in the west are structured are making it increasingly difficult to participate in the world without plugging yourself into the surveillance borg. Examples abound even in this thread - QR codes to order food; needing to ask concierge to call you a Lyft because taxis are nonexistent in the neighbourhood and you aren't carrying a smartphone.
There is so much friction involved in living life with minimal technology that you are placing yourself at a significant disadvantage and living your life less efficiently than others by needing to make compromises or forego certain amenities entirely. While it is possible to live life like this and eschew such creature comforts, it becomes exhausting after several years of doing so, and there is no indication that the tides will turn or the winds will begin blowing in the other direction. You can continue swimming upstream for naught and at great disadvantage to yourself, but it will not change the direction of the current. If anything, the pandemic and work-from-home has only accelerated the trend, with the invasion of Internet-connected surveillance devices into one's private quarters now made mandatory in order to participate in the workforce.
> needing to ask concierge to call you a Lyft
Considering this was also necessary before smartphones existed, I'm not sure why it's supposed to be a problem now.
I think the drive for "privacy respect" in devices should really be an effort to push manufacturers toward making devices that work without Internet-connectivity. I think everybody technical who cares about privacy should beat this drum to all their friends, family, etc, to vote with their wallets.
Standalone devices make a stronger privacy guarantee than the alternative.
"Connected" devices that offer "privacy" rely on the compliance of the companies who run the servers for the devices. It also means they can't get breached, either.
https://standards.ieee.org/beyond-standards/ieee-802-11bf-ai...
Since many of us grew up before and then after the Internet, we kind of instinctively get what application functionality needs the Internet, what functionality doesn't, what gets written to the Internet, what gets read from the Internet and so on. Younger computer/phone users don't get this at all. My 11 year old has no mental picture of why X requires Internet and Y doesn't require Internet. She doesn't understand the concept of Data A is stored on-device, and Data B is stored on the Internet. And honestly, I'm even having a harder and harder time explaining it. Tech applications have totally blurred and grayed the previously black-and-white line.
as the article shows, according to the law of the time there was no right to privacy, and photos were not protected until the public protested and the laws were changed.
likewise today any expectation of privacy is a matter of opinion. just because laws do not sufficiently protect our privacy, does not mean that we should give up any expectation of privacy. on the contrary, we need to demand better protection from out lawmakers. vote accordingly
Hard disagree. The only unreasonable expectation is that you could go out in public and not be seen at all. It is entirely reasonable to expect not to be tracked, doxxed, etc.
I would like to put the brakes on the idea that just because we can do something, it is okay to do it. The law was written when computers, networking, smartphones, and high resolution digital cameras did not exist. We could easily conclude that every bit of surveillance technology that did not exist in e.g. 1950 is illegal until explicitly permitted by law. Certain organizations would like to gaslight us into thinking that is impossible, that the cat is out of the bag so to speak. I do not agree. We can do it.