On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 09:27:26AM +0100, Bob W scripsit: > > >>> I really don't think you can equate occasional picture-talking > > >>> at arbitrary locations with systematic filming of large areas. > > >>> Those acts are really very different in nature. > > >> > > >> How so? > > >> > > > I think what you're asking there is, how is knowing one thing > > > different from knowing everything? > > > > Moreover, the one thing is not already admissible as evidence; the > > everything is *intended* as evidence. > > What do you mean? Any photograph can be used as evidence if necessary.
But your photographs (or my photographs) are not already in an evidence database and automatically searched. They don't *exist* for purposes of law enforcement. They're also not automatically admissible; if one of my photographs were to be admitted as evidence, I'd have to show up in court or provide a deposition to the effect that it was taken at such-and-such a place at thus-and-such a time, and the court would get to decide if it believed me about that. The British CCTV pictures, on the other hand, enjoy a pre-existing status of evidence (and a very shaky custody chain). It's very important to remember -- the lesson of Guy Paul Morin, to quote a Canadian example -- that the police habitually frame the guy they know is guilty, and that a digital photograph is not good evidence because it can be completely synthesized. (An ability that is only going to improve.) Nor does ubiquitous surveillance even work (too many false positives) as a security measure. (Consider the successful suits against stoplight cameras, despite those being specific and effective.) Google "panopticon singularity" or "panopticon singularity bruce schneier" sometime. (Example result below.) http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/10/rfid_chips_in_s.html If you want a modern construction of a right to privacy, it's a right not to be recorded in any public database such that the false positive rate for whatever the database is for is not higher than the true positive rate, or, in the case of private or commercial databases, to not be recorded identifiably at all. Doesn't have a thing to do with a general right to take photographs in public places. -- Graydon, who will admit to trying hard not to photograph anyone without their prior permission; that basic Canadian diffidence. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
