General Discussion

djean111

(14,255 posts)

2. Didn't you know?

Sat Nov 1, 2014, 01:05 PM

Nov 2014

Evidently, any time you walk outside your front door (or back door, now that we have camera drones) you not only have no expectation of privacy at all, but you just may see yourself all over the internet.

Dunno about privacy inside your house. Probably have to stay away from windows. And even then, your privacy can be invaded by having everything you say on the phone or type on your computer recorded and searched through, if the NSA feels like it.

We are all just paparazzi fodder now. And we all have the capacity to be Big Brother. Some revel in that.

Bet that if someone smacked down a hobbyist's cute little drone over their back yard, some would yell foul. For depriving the poor hobbyist.

Can't do anything about it except avoid those who think it okay and funny, in my private life.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

60 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Google fined $2000 for street view clevage shot [View all] scarystuffyo Nov 2014 OP

the lady had the right to not have that pic on the internet La Lioness Priyanka Nov 2014 #1

Didn't you know? djean111 Nov 2014 #2

Actually, it's pretty simple to have Google blank you off street view. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Nov 2014 #7

What's the danger if someone sees your license plate number? Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #12

No idea, she just didn't like it. nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN Nov 2014 #19

You Used To Be Able Get The Address ozone82 Nov 2014 #34

Rebecca Schaeffer. Fawke Em Nov 2014 #48

Why would you have an expectation of privacy Codeine Nov 2014 #22

Umm, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public bobclark86 Nov 2014 #35

Umm.. you have no right to not be photographed while in public. X_Digger Nov 2014 #36

If... GummyBearz Nov 2014 #3

I agree, she had the right to not have that pic on the internet uppityperson Nov 2014 #4

So if you are in a baseball game or other public place in a revealing outfit Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #13

there are times we are in public knowing that cameras will be around (sports events, music events) La Lioness Priyanka Nov 2014 #14

+1 woo me with science Nov 2014 #16

Legally, sitting on your porch in full public view, you have no "expectation of privacy", Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #17

Exactly. Jamastiene Nov 2014 #44

Doesn't the use of the ticket waive certain claims of privacy? Orrex Nov 2014 #26

There's a photo I took where the neighbor is in the background watering their lawn... Drunken Irishman Nov 2014 #20

You of course are totally incorrect about this. nt Logical Nov 2014 #30

here in mercuryblues Nov 2014 #5

I think those rulings were a pretty narrow decision. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Nov 2014 #8

Yes, that was women sitting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #15

Apparently mercuryblues Nov 2014 #21

Well those are icky. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Nov 2014 #23

exactly mercuryblues Nov 2014 #24

We didn't have to specify the part to blur. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Nov 2014 #27

I'd like to know how to get them to make my not searchable too. Jamastiene Nov 2014 #46

I think we did it entirely online, for free. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Nov 2014 #53

Massachusetts fixed that issue last March. FWIW. MADem Nov 2014 #52

That law was struck down by the courts because it was too broad davidn3600 Nov 2014 #33

Not quite. One law was struck down as being too broad in scope. X_Digger Nov 2014 #37

I like Canada's way better too. Jamastiene Nov 2014 #57

I was going to Recommend this thread, but not with the Jamastiene Nov 2014 #6

Well, anyone one is public property when appearing in the public. nt Logical Nov 2014 #31

To do with as any man pleases? Jamastiene Nov 2014 #38

How do you propose to ban it? Nt Logical Nov 2014 #42

It should be illegal to take pictures of someone else's private property or them Jamastiene Nov 2014 #43

Did you get permission to post a picture of a seven-year old girl on the internet? Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #45

That picture was already in the public domain, already published in a paper. Jamastiene Nov 2014 #47

Bullshit....... Logical Nov 2014 #51

And I don't want to live in your country. Jamastiene Nov 2014 #56

LOL, you have not put 10 minutes of thought to enforcing what you proposed. Impossible. nt Logical Nov 2014 #59

Wonder mercuryblues Nov 2014 #54

Women don't stand a chance. n/t Jamastiene Nov 2014 #58

Just wait until . . . Brigid Nov 2014 #9

Kind of ironic that when I click the link you provided I get to see this woman's cleavage. Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #10

Kind of like a Hidden Post on DU. alphafemale Nov 2014 #40

Bad decision by the judge VScott Nov 2014 #11

This is Canada customerserviceguy Nov 2014 #29

I can see making Google take down such pictures upon request... Silent3 Nov 2014 #18

Streisand Effect chrisa Nov 2014 #25

I have to wonder - Did she give Gizmodo permission to show off her pic? Lancero Nov 2014 #28

No need to I am sure. nt Logical Nov 2014 #32

I am starting to think that a burqa might not be such a bad fucking idea after all. djean111 Nov 2014 #39

A burqa is fine ... JustABozoOnThisBus Nov 2014 #50

$2000? Google probably made that in 1/10th of a second. alphafemale Nov 2014 #41

Down the blouse = bad, but up the skirt = good? joeybee12 Nov 2014 #49

Up-skirt pics are the height of vile behavior, but... Orrex Nov 2014 #55

Holy shit! Is that Poppy Bush outside a Dallas police station in 1963? hughee99 Nov 2014 #60