Where does privet end, and public begin?

[I_don't_know]

The article, NSA revelations force question: What do we want?, asks that question. Where does privet end, and public begin?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130608/DA6PL3OG0.html


I was discussing the use of cameras to catch drivers that run stop lights. He insisted they were an invasion of privacy. I posed a hypothetical question: If a woman, in the privacy of her closed garage, got naked into her car, and then opened the garage door and drove out. If she stays in the car, could she be charged with indecent exposure?


But what do you think? Where does privet end and public begin?

[katydidagain]

Depends on the state, province or country in which she lives whether lifting her arms way up over her head so that someone could see her nakedness would be an issue. Nudity is legal in many areas.

[Wolfy-hound]

If you can be seen from a public area, I believe you are "in public" as far as privacy is concerned.

This means that if you open the curtains on your giant picture window in your living room and take off your clothing, you're flashing people who are walking on the public sidewalk, not dealing with peeping toms.

If you're driving on a public road, you are pretty much in public sight.

If someone can stand on a public area and see you to take a picture, technically, it's legal.

[wannabechef]

I though this was a thread about privet hedge!!

[Harry Chickpea]

Yes she could be charged. Anyone who plants privet intentionally should be charged as well.

[Ozarks Tom]

Originally Posted by I_don't_know

The article, NSA revelations force question: What do we want?, asks that question. Where does privet end, and public begin?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130608/DA6PL3OG0.html


I was discussing the use of cameras to catch drivers that run stop lights. He insisted they were an invasion of privacy. I posed a hypothetical question: If a woman, in the privacy of her closed garage, got naked into her car, and then opened the garage door and drove out. If she stays in the car, could she be charged with indecent exposure?


But what do you think? Where does privet end and public begin?

Whoa, are we talking secret obsessions or the law here? Yes, if you go out in public naked you're probably going to jail (can I watch the perp walk?).

Private is just that, no one else around. Public is when anyone else can see, from whatever vantage point.

[kasilofhome]

Only thing is google and statilites have a large vision field--simply the earth's crust.
The hearing range of mics and other listening devices is well beyond my knowledge.
Where I can not see in the dark there are ways in which life forms can be viewed via infered and other scanners.

Even with in the boundries of our bodies TSA and DHS have the talents and tools and willingness to see quite abit of our once private matters. Whether it is a metal screw in a repaired bone or an implant.

Privacy is heading to becomming a thing of the past.

[arabian knight]

Originally Posted by kasilofhome

Only thing is google and statilites have a large vision field--simply the earth's crust.
The hearing range of mics and other listening devices is well beyond my knowledge.
Where I can not see in the dark there are ways in which life forms can be viewed via infered and other scanners.

Even with in the boundries of our bodies TSA and DHS have the talents and tools and willingness to see quite abit of our once private matters. Whether it is a metal screw in a repaired bone or an implant.

Privacy is heading to becomming a thing of the past.

Don't forget if you didn't know already, those satellites images that you see from Google and other sources are STOPPED by the Government to show just so much, "THEY" the Government, and other agencies can SEE much closer up then the general public can. "They" can "Zoom" in at least two more clicks then we can. And THAT is Not funny at all.

As an American company, DigitalGlobe is subject to specific US laws and, more broadly, shutter control. But the company’s relationship with the government is more than just regulatory: while it provides high resolution imagery to commercial clients, its highest resolution imagery, which will come from the forthcoming WorldView-3 satellite, will be supplied exclusively to the US government. Legally, however, commercial satellite providers cannot sell imagery with higher than .5 meter resolution (that’s .5 meters per pixel), so the WorldView-3 isn’t denying consumers something they would otherwise be able to get.

To focus on the imagery that Google and Microsoft collect, however, would be to miss the most effective form of censorship in digital mapping. What you can see in a given mapping service depends much more on where you are than what you’re looking at — in South Korea, for example, Google Maps employs imagery from high-resolution suppliers but doesn’t allow users to zoom in very far. The limit keeps Google from running afoul of South Korea’s rules about displaying satellite imagery of military installations. But it also applies to the entire map, even places where said rules don’t apply

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/ho...trol-the-world

[Laura Zone 5]

Originally Posted by I_don't_know

The article, NSA revelations force question: What do we want?, asks that question. Where does privet end, and public begin?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130608/DA6PL3OG0.html


I was discussing the use of cameras to catch drivers that run stop lights. He insisted they were an invasion of privacy. I posed a hypothetical question: If a woman, in the privacy of her closed garage, got naked into her car, and then opened the garage door and drove out. If she stays in the car, could she be charged with indecent exposure?


But what do you think? Where does privet end and public begin?

Privacy, does not exist.
"Enemy of the State" may have 'looked like' fiction.
"Eagle Eye" may have 'looked like' an action thriller.
But Make no mistake. There is NO such thing, as privacy.
And there has been no privacy, for years.
It will only get more invasive.

[HDRider]

"I see what you are doing.
I know where you go.
I know what you are thinking."

Am I hearing things?

[I_don't_know]

Originally Posted by Ozarks Tom

Whoa, are we talking secret obsessions or the law here? Yes, if you go out in public naked you're probably going to jail (can I watch the perp walk?).

Private is just that, no one else around. Public is when anyone else can see, from whatever vantage point.

Perhaps I should have left out my discussion about the lady driver. (My attempt at humor.) The article is the important thing. The fact is, both government and business have been collecting info about us for a long time now. So where does you right to privacy start and their right to collect begin. Read the article, it poses some interesting questions.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130608/DA6PL3OG0.html

So lets try it again. What do you think?

[lmnde]

It's a very good question. A very close friend of mine, had a not so minor FBI invasion on her rural property not that long ago, probably courtesy due to her adult son who has somewhat extreme leanings and because he mouthed off to some IRS agents. Not exactly clear how the both are related, but it came down to some 8-10 vehicles and over 30 FBI agents on her family's property.

Nothing came off it other than some lengthy + heated talks, but ever since then she feels that her phones are tapped, and she often gets the vibe that she is being followed by an unmarked vehicle [correct or not = who knows, I guess I would be feeling paranoid too]. What's really happening though, is due to that occurrence, she feels she cannot have a honest phone conversation - everything is cagey, secretive, hints, or subject matters cut short, etc - and I have yet to have a close up talk as we used to share several times each week, unless I drive nearly 150 mile round trip to have lunch or dinner with her. I really, really miss talking to my BFF.

Along the same line of thought - I speak often to my German friends and relatives, and I also do international business with the dogs. I've caught myself thinking often many times, that open sharing of ones' opinion or thoughts is no longer safe via either media - phone or email, and curtail my conversations accordingly. We used to have really nice conversations discussing politics etc - no more of that either. Reading this article brought to mind that I am not the only one doing this, so really - this has not only become a tool for observation but also for alienation and isolation, if one is concerned about ones' privacy.

I used to think that as long as you don't do wrong and break no laws [goody2shoes here] there is nothing to be concerned about, but I am not that sure any longer. And BTW - I am German and my parents and grandparents lived through WWII and have seen this happening before - I grew up with those stories. So there! Do I have to be afraid to share my opinion now?

[unregistered5595]

Originally Posted by Wolfy-hound

If someone can stand on a public area and see you to take a picture, technically, it's legal.

I don't think it's always technically legal. (and with the 1000's of laws and rules that are local, state, private company shops, public companies, union shops, public lands, and federal--it would take attorneys to figure it out, a serious waste of money)

This link is about taking pictures, under cover, covertly, or from public lands onto farm lands--illegal in some cases, in some places. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/us...anted=all&_r=0

It's legal to tape conversations if you own your phone and pay the phone line fees with either one party or two party consent based on the state or federal jurisdiction.

It's legal to video tape my neighbors yard while they illegally setting off fireworks, and it is also a noise disturbance--I didn't bother. It is my private land, to their private land.

Union shops usually do not allow voice recordings or video recordings by workers in the union shop, but the union shop can do both.

There are articles I've read about the police standing on public property being videoed by land owners on their private property, having been arrested and videos are confiscated.
There are articles I've read about the police videoing of traffic stops, which are currently legal.
Going through security at the airport show much more private things than just your shoes or clothes.

Overall, if you own land, or own a private company, or own a union shop, or pay for your phone calls--the person/company that owns them, pays for them, finances them, can generally can make the rules and control their own privacy.

It makes sense, that the more companies that are bailed out by the government, or taken over by the government, and people that get free government phones, or have their utilities paid by the state, or are on welfare, could easily see the government making the rules and choosing to monitor those entities in any way they see fit--and any privacy is gone.(this is all happening anyways)

So that pretty much covers, people with free cell phone usage, people getting government help-state or federal, people in bankruptcy, companies in bankruptcy, bailed out banks--all of those people's financial records at those banks--it wouldn't surprise me at all that the government gets those records. I would believe that since the government pays for them (we, the public, pay for them), we are entitled to those records.

Who owns the information on the internet? Your email, your web searching records, your forum posts? You pay your internet line, so you do. Your electronic communication passes through a public server, or a government server, so now they do. You bank online with a bailed out bank, so now they do--the bank and the government. Your letters to your good friend--it just depends and if your friend works for the government, or if the email passes through a government server, now doesn't the government own that too? The laws have not caught up with technology.

Back to the idea of: If someone can stand on a public area and see you to take a picture, technically, it's legal. It *should* be legal, but it isn't always legal. If you send those pictures over the internet to your mom, your friend, or post it online--then what? Is it public or private?

[HDRider]

Russian training exercise for Al-Qaeda..

YouTube

[Paumon]

FITB said "The laws have not caught up with technology". Well the fact is neither have the people caught up with technology, and they haven't caught up with the fact that there is no such thing as personal privacy. There never has been. I don't know where people have gotten the idea that privacy is something they're entitled to when privacy is something that isn't real, it doesn't exist and never has existed. It never will exist.

As long as people have been around other people there has been no privacy because people were always observing other people. Before communications technology came along all people were observing and spying on other people to preserve their own survival. The only way to ensure the preservation of personal privacy and home and food security was to not interact with other people and to stay hidden out of sight.

With the advent of communications technology it became easier to observe other people and there were less and less secrets to be kept from others. If you wanted to send a telegraph there was a telegraph operator you had to go through to relay it so the telegraph operator knew the message. No privacy. When the telephone came along, if you wanted to talk to somebody there was the switchboard operator that had to put your call through and there was no way of knowing whether or not the switchboard operator was listening in. No privacy. And of course when phone service advanced to the level where you could ring somebody up yourself there were still party lines so there was always the chance that some other person on the party line was listening in. No privacy. When single dwelling/business lines became available there was still the chance that a line technician was listening in or that your phone was being tapped by some agency. If you wanted to relay a message privately to somebody at a distance who you couldn't communicate with face to face - you wrote a letter and sent it in the mail by postal service. There was still no guarantee that the letter would arrive at its destination without having been opened and read by somebody else.

And that was when there was only half the world's population that there is now. The world population has doubled since then and that just means more people to observe and spy on other people in order to preserve their own survival.

When cordless telephones and then cell phones were invented people gave up even more of their privacy by utilizing those gadgets. Then along comes internet, emails and cel phones equipped with cameras and GPS and you have every Joe Blow under the sun plus his children are all advertising their whole lives to the whole wide world full of 7 billion people.

And people complain about not having privacy, a concept that doesn't exist and never did.

What a joke. Everybody needs to stop deluding themselves and face up to the reality that there never was and never will be any such thing as privacy.

[HDRider]

Originally Posted by Paumon

FITB said "The laws have not caught up with technology". Well the fact is neither have the people caught up with technology, and they haven't caught up with the fact that there is no such thing as personal privacy. There never has been. I don't know where people have gotten the idea that privacy is something they're entitled to when privacy is something that isn't real, it doesn't exist and never has existed. It never will exist.

As long as people have been around other people there has been no privacy because people were always observing other people. Before communications technology came along all people were observing and spying on other people to preserve their own survival. The only way to ensure the preservation of personal privacy and home and food security was to not interact with other people and to stay hidden out of sight.

With the advent of communications technology it became easier to observe other people and there were less and less secrets to be kept from others. If you wanted to send a telegraph there was a telegraph operator you had to go through to relay it so the telegraph operator knew the message. No privacy. When the telephone came along, if you wanted to talk to somebody there was the switchboard operator that had to put your call through and there was no way of knowing whether or not the switchboard operator was listening in. No privacy. And of course when phone service advanced to the level where you could ring somebody up yourself there were still party lines so there was always the chance that some other person on the party line was listening in. No privacy. When single dwelling/business lines became available there was still the chance that a line technician was listening in or that your phone was being tapped by some agency. If you wanted to relay a message privately to somebody at a distance who you couldn't communicate with face to face - you wrote a letter and sent it in the mail by postal service. There was still no guarantee that the letter would arrive at its destination without having been opened and read by somebody else.

And that was when there was only half the world's population that there is now. The world population has doubled since then and that just means more people to observe and spy on other people in order to preserve their own survival.

When cordless telephones and then cell phones were invented people gave up even more of their privacy by utilizing those gadgets. Then along comes internet, emails and cel phones equipped with cameras and GPS and you have every Joe Blow under the sun plus his children are all advertising their whole lives to the whole wide world full of 7 billion people.

And people complain about not having privacy, a concept that doesn't exist and never did.

What a joke. Everybody needs to stop deluding themselves and face up to the reality that there never was and never will be any such thing as privacy.

Deluded or not, I expect my financial information to be private and protected with my bank and investment houses.

I expect the inside of my house to be private. I do not believe technology should be used to peer in or listen in unless a court issues an order because of reasonable suspicion. I believe in the sanctity of my home.

I expect privacy of my medical records, and the confidentiality of doctor and patient.

I believe that conversations between me and my lawyer should be private.


The foot prints I make in public are not private. By foot prints I mean where I go on the internet or on the telephone.

I do believe that public officials, elected or appointed, or hired should not use big data, or public foot prints to further a political purpose. The IRS comes to mind.

[unregistered5595]

A concept of privacy does actually exist.
A person cannot take pictures of my minor children and post them on the internet without my permission. Schools recognize this right to privacy.

Here is an article in the news today about an artist/photographer taking pictures from his property (apt building) through the window and into another apartment of adults (not recognizable) and children (recognizable).
http://entertainment.msn.com/news/ar...px?news=808235
I believe the right of privacy should exist for adults and children in their residences. (every single room, and outbuildings)

I have rights to my medical information being private.
I have rights to exclude/block people from information on my Facebook.

HDRider, I think you covered more points about privacy than I am here. I agree with you.

[Paumon]

Originally Posted by HDRider

Deluded or not, I expect my financial information to be private and protected with my bank and investment houses.

I expect the inside of my house to be private. I do not believe technology should be used to peer in or listen in unless a court issues an order because of reasonable suspicion. I believe in the sanctity of my home.

I expect privacy of my medical records, and the confidentiality of doctor and patient.

I believe that conversations between me and my lawyer should be private.


The foot prints I make in public are not private. By foot prints I mean where I go on the internet or on the telephone.

I do believe that public officials, elected or appointed, or hired should not use big data, or public foot prints to further a political purpose. The IRS comes to mind.

Originally Posted by Feather In The Breeze

A concept of privacy does actually exist.
A person cannot take pictures of my minor children and post them on the internet without my permission. Schools recognize this right to privacy.

Here is an article in the news today about an artist/photographer taking pictures from his property (apt building) through the window and into another apartment of adults (not recognizable) and children (recognizable).
http://entertainment.msn.com/news/ar...px?news=808235
I believe the right of privacy should exist for adults and children in their residences. (every single room, and outbuildings)

I have rights to my medical information being private.
I have rights to exclude/block people from information on my Facebook.

HDRider, I think you covered more points about privacy than I am here. I agree with you.

I get what you both are saying. I don't think you get the point of what I'm saying though.

You have expectations and beliefs about privacy and what you think are your rights and what you think should be.

Just because you have those expectations, beliefs, thoughts and demands for yourself does not make it so, it does not mean that everyone else is going to respect them. There is no guarantee that any of those expectations are going to happen for you or that other people will respect your demands.

People are expected to not take pictures of you or your children and post them without your permission - but people still do it anyway. Doctors are expected to keep records confidential but there is no guarantee that it will happen because doctors now put that information on computers and hackers get into their records. Same thing with banking and financial information - it can all get hacked into by people who couldn't care less about respecting your expectations of privacy.

Sure there are certain rights and laws that you believe you are supposed to have but expecting to have those rights respected by everyone - well that is just a fantasy. There are people who are not law abiding people, and people who are law abiding, but even some law abiding people think they have rights that are in opposition to what you expect.

There's not much you can do about it except to be extremely circumspect about your personal life and always expect that somebody else will make an effort to violate or otherwise infringe on your expectations, beliefs and rights. Laws and rights can be made and imposed and they can also be broken by unscrupulous people who have no respect for other people's laws and rights.

There really is no such thing as personal privacy and there never has been for as long as people have been living around other people. To believe otherwise is not realistic.

[unregistered5595]

Paumon--I do understand what you are saying, that we *shouldn't trust*, *shouldn't expect*, *shouldn't think*, *shouldn't believe* that we deserve the right to privacy, and if we do we are in *fantasy land*. I'm certain people are being betrayed by the lack of respect for privacy, every day, and again, I say, we *should expect* confidentiality and respect for our privacy. I would instead say *BE WARY* of your friends, the people you do business with, the government which may or may not have your best interest at heart.

I believe we should trust, expect, believe, and think that we do have a right to privacy. So while I understand what you are saying, and you are saying it's not *realistic*. I believe it is realistic and we disagree.

It's damaging to privacy, trust, compliance with the law, and banking, to stop all trust, all thinking, all belief and all expectations of respect for privacy. It's normal to be outraged that anyone violates your right to privacy and your right to confidentiality. It borders on *silence the masses* to want people not to speak up about it.

Last year a friend that sold a house and closed out an IRA, put the money in the bank, in one account. The 'friendly' bank teller within the month, invited the friend to spend some time with them, at a public location, about some personal interests. (outside of the bank) So, yak it up with your bank teller--but don't expect 'greedy Lucille' to not act in her best interest. They don't bank there anymore.

You can tell 'greedy fred unable to manage money' nothing about what you have.
You can tell 'gossipy sally-legal assistant' nothing.
You can tell 'your needy friend Jezebel' nothing about your marriage issues.
You can tell 'wanna be prepper Blowhard joe' nothing about your food stores.

It's naive to believe otherwise.
If you haven't met these people, you haven't lived.
Your communications and your ability to decide to who to trust are up to you, you are an adult.
It's not just so simple to say you can't control your privacy, you can and you *should*.

Decide very carefully-your friends, and your communications. Yes, people will disrespect your privacy and confidentiality rights and you have the right to stand up for what is right when you are violated. Decide if you are willing to put up the fight, take on the war, if it is a war worth fighting for then fight the good fight.

[kasilofhome]

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008...ht-to-privacy/

The Constitution and the Right to Privacy

By Tenth Amendment on January 21, 2008 in Constitution 17

For a long, long time, we’ve heard people debate back and forth about whether or not there’s a “right to privacy” in the Constitution (and Bill of Rights).
For an excellent lesson on this issue, see a classic article from Harry Browne:

The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.
Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now, where’s the right to privacy?
It is clearly in those two amendments.
The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.
That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn’t specifically authorized in the Constitution.
(read more)

It’s pretty straightforward. There is a right to privacy. Why? Because the government isn’t specifically given the power to violate your privacy.
That’s what the 10th Amendment is all about – government is strictly limited to doing those activities which are specifically authorized to it by the Constitution.
Everything else is left to “the States, respectively, or to the People.“