Comments on: Street Smarts: Google’s “Street View” and the Blurring of Privacy http://www.ignisfatuus.com/2008/05/06/street-smarts/ Wed, 01 Sep 2010 08:41:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: melon http://www.ignisfatuus.com/2008/05/06/street-smarts/comment-page-1/#comment-25 melon Sat, 10 May 2008 18:28:15 +0000 http://www.ignisfatuus.com/?p=19#comment-25 This issue is more complicated, as it is on-par with many people's revulsion towards street cameras, which are a regular fixture in London (U.K., not Ontario). I'd argue that the legality of this issue is tied to whether street cameras are legal. If they are, then there should be no complaints. If not, then Google's actions might have to be addressed. This issue is more complicated, as it is on-par with many people’s revulsion towards street cameras, which are a regular fixture in London (U.K., not Ontario). I’d argue that the legality of this issue is tied to whether street cameras are legal. If they are, then there should be no complaints. If not, then Google’s actions might have to be addressed.

]]> By: Dave http://www.ignisfatuus.com/2008/05/06/street-smarts/comment-page-1/#comment-13 Dave Wed, 07 May 2008 23:05:20 +0000 http://www.ignisfatuus.com/?p=19#comment-13 It occurs to me re-reading this that the solution is to make a minor adjustment to Canadian law, to bring all public space into line with the space inside the SkyDome. In other words, consent can still be the criterion by which privacy is judged when on private property, but one's presence *in public* constitutes tacit agreement to any potential image-capture and reproduction. I think most people live by this unwritten rule already .... We're becoming a race of documentors; in a decade virtually everyone will have a camera on their person all the time. It's going to be increasingly difficult to monitor and control the dissemination of images - far easier to give everyone a blanket warning, making them responsible for *all* their public actions. It occurs to me re-reading this that the solution is to make a minor adjustment to Canadian law, to bring all public space into line with the space inside the SkyDome. In other words, consent can still be the criterion by which privacy is judged when on private property, but one’s presence *in public* constitutes tacit agreement to any potential image-capture and reproduction. I think most people live by this unwritten rule already ….

We’re becoming a race of documentors; in a decade virtually everyone will have a camera on their person all the time. It’s going to be increasingly difficult to monitor and control the dissemination of images – far easier to give everyone a blanket warning, making them responsible for *all* their public actions.

]]>