Sindarina, Edge Case Detective (@sindarina@mastodon.lol)
mstdn.social
I am a bit worried about the number of people here who, like me, are fairly recent arrivals, and who are using the so-called 'extreme' and 'unreasonable' reactions to them wanting to 'hack' the fediverse to write off the whole conversation around consent as somehow not relevant. The NSA monitors anything you do on the internet anyway, so why are you complaining about tech bros wanting to harvest out in the open, yada yada. It seems we need to define what consent actually is. AGAIN.
  • rysiek@szmer.infoOP
    3·
    2 years ago

    You technically can, and if you get caught the cafe can (and should, imo) kick you out for doing so.

    Right, so we agree here. But you did not respond to the second question: are cafés public or private spaces?

    I’m a big proponent of enforcing privacy in online and offline spaces with technology, policy, and social norms. I’m also opposed to magical thinking. Telling people that they can semi-publish, to have some of the benefits of publishing without some of the consequences, is misleading to the point of being dishonest.

    Nobody is saying that. Nowhere in the thread I linked is that being said. Nowhere in my comments did I say that. It’s not about telling people they can or cannot “semi-publish”, it’s about telling people creating systems and products that they need to ask these people for permission to do certain things.

    Or in other words: it’s not about telling café patrons they can or can’t have perfectly private conversations in the café, it’s about telling anyone who might want to potentially record conversations in that café “you have to ask and receive permission for this first”. That’s a pretty crucial difference.

    • Arthur BesseA
      6·
      2 years ago

      are cafés public or private spaces?

      They’re fundamentally private spaces, even if open to the public. Under certain zoning ordinances they may be considered a “public place” for some purposes if they are above a certain size, but this does not negate their ability to set their own rules and deny access to members of the public who violate them.

      If a cafe wants to enforce a “no phones” rule, they can do so relatively effectively. If a website wants to enforce a “no robots” rule (especially if they also want to not require any login to view the content on the site) they can ultimately only pretend to be able to do that effectively.

      • rysiek@szmer.infoOP
        21·
        2 years ago

        If a cafe wants to enforce a “no phones” rule, they can do so relatively effectively. If a website wants to enforce a “no robots” rule (especially if they also want to not require any login to view the content on the site) they can ultimately only pretend to be able to do that effectively.

        But you’re again conflating the issue of consent and enforcement. There are things we are able to do but we know to ask first before we do them. The fact that something is possible doesn’t mean that it’s allowed. The fact that something is not easy to enforce against does not make it okay to do it anyway.

        What about public parks? Is it okay to walk around you while you’re having a conversation and record you, and then post that conversation on-line? Is it okay to use directional microphones to record you in such a setting? Doesn’t the whole recording-in-the-park thing from the Conversation give you the creeps?

        Are you saying that the fact that something is difficult to enforce against makes it okay to do, even if the person you do this to does not want it done?

        • Arthur BesseA
          41·
          2 years ago

          What about public parks? Is it okay to walk around you while you’re having a conversation and record you, and then post that conversation on-line?

          No, that would certainly not be okay. When I’m walking in a public park I have some expectation of privacy. If you’re walking close to me when I’m having what is intended to be a private conversation, I might notice and pause.

          You are conflating private and public conversations. When we’re having a conversation in a public forum like this online, we are both posting it on-line already.

          I hope archive.org posts another copy on-line so that if I want to refer to this later, after lemmy and the whole cargo-cult-deadend activitypub architecture has gone the way of the dodo, I will still be able to. And I hope they make it searchable!

          Is it okay to use directional microphones to record you in such a setting?

          Of course not. It’s also not possible to be sure it isn’t happening, but, if/when that is happening it is an unambiguous violation of social norms (and the law, in most places).

          Doesn’t the whole recording-in-the-park thing from the Conversation give you the creeps?

          Absolutely. (And now I’m wondering if you’ve noticed the reference to this film in my profile here or are bringing it up independently… 😀)

          Are you saying that the fact that something is difficult to enforce against makes it okay to do, even if the person you do this to does not want it done?

          Not at all. I think publicly archiving public web content is okay because I think it has a net public benefit. Better than okay, I think it is a good thing to do.

          It is not because it is difficult to enforce against that I think it is okay. The fact that it is difficult to enforce against is why I think that it is not okay to give people who don’t know any better the false impression that it is not difficult to enforce against.

          • pingveno
            3·
            2 years ago

            I hope archive.org posts another copy on-line so that if I want to refer to this later, after lemmy and the whole cargo-cult-deadend activitypub architecture has gone the way of the dodo, I will still be able to.

            To go further with this, I’m glad that I live in one of the most archive-happy time periods in history, at least when it comes to public data. Much of human history is simply lost to us. The wealthy might have distorted histories of themselves written and some records persist, but historical records are often incomplete or straight up propaganda. Only recently have we gotten to the point where just about anyone has the capability to keep a written record of their life (universal literacy).

            But actually storing those for millennia is hard. Most medium degrade quite quickly, maybe even within decades. Certain texts were only preserved via regularly copying, hardly scalable. It takes something like the Internet Archive to preserve a lasting legacy that can extend past the most influential people into the experiences of commoners.