Quote:
Originally Posted by Bama
This is a great debate - kudos to all involved!
I don't see the meaning of "in public" changing. I don't think anyone in a public area has any right to expect privacy - that's why they made doors and gave those doors hinges.
I think that perhaps this would be a whole 'nother can of worms if we were talking about live streaming video but we're not. This is simply a car passing by taking a picture and driving off and the line between "chances are" and "worst case scenario" is kind of blurry.
This is not a case of "Big Brother" watching.
"Big Brother" implies a legal or governmental agency - and Google certainly doesn't fit into that category.
"Watching" implies a sustained focus of attention - and taking a picture of everything without a focus of a target and for only a brief moment disqualifies this word as an appropriate description of what is happening.
Worst case scenario, I'd say it's "Distant Relative Trying To Make A Buck" as a better description.
|
I actually think the meaning of "in public" has already changed quite a bit. A statement intended for a small group of people these days has the potential to have the same reach as a deliberately broadly publicised message.
When you post on a small message board, it is not with the same intentions as when you write an article for a newspaper, or deliver a speech on television. Yet, in effect, the reach can actually be much larger, even though the intended audience was much smaller.
Likewise, look at pictures. In past times, pictures taken in bars, clubs or on the street were seen by quite a few people, but they were extremely unlikely to get published worldwide. These days, whenever someone takes a picture, it is likely to be published in such a way that everyone, anywhere can see it.
As for Big Brother watching us... the Big Brother that's watching us in Europe is CCTV. Google, on the other hand, is the big brother that's merely logging our search terms, website visits, ad clicks, etc.