You absolutely do, and even the Supreme Court has sided that you have some expectation of privacy. Blanket “you don’t have a right to privacy” is why I’m calling you a dumbass. The EFF even agrees with me.
I don’t know what empty rooms you’re in, but I’m not surprised I guess given the kind of creep you are.
You should try reading that article yourself, which is about aggregated, long-term tracking (like GPS data or ALPR networks) and persistent surveillance over time, which is very different from the moment-to-moment visibility you have on a train.
Damn dude, you look really fucking stupid here, do you want to try again?
Actually you’re the one looking fucking stupid, here.
The idea that we don’t have the right to privacy in public was first argued in regards to legitimate use of cameras in public and when a video maker does (or doesn’t) need to get your permission.
If you’re caught on camera incidentally during a news story about a house fire. Or you’re in the background of a surveillance tape of a robbery they’re showing on the news. Or traffic cameras, or cop dash cams. Legitimate uses where public interest is a priority.
If a filmmaker is shooting a scene on location (for an example of the other direction), and they happen to catch some members of the public, they need to get those people to sign a consent form, or else they can’t use the footage. This is the law, I believe, EVERYWHERE that has ever argued this in court.
So yes, while there are legitimate reasons that a person’s privacy is considered able to be suspended (such as news in the public interest), contributing to some incel’s spank-bank isn’t one of those reasons. And you’re a fucking idiot if you don’t grasp that concept.
You couldn’t be more wrong. You’re conflating commercial image rights, public interest reporting, and actual privacy rights. You can be filmed in public all day legally; you just might not be able to sell your image commercially without a release. Public visibility doesn’t give you privacy - that’s why cops, traffic cams, and news footage can film you legally. Filmmakers needing consent is about commercial exploitation of someone’s image, not a magic ‘right to not be seen.’ And just because some uses are gross doesn’t suddenly create a legal privacy right. Public exposure ≠ privacy. Period. Oh, and fucking idiot = you.
jesus christ your ego can’t let you admit you’re wrong. What a fucking clown you are lol. No you do not “have a right to privacy in public” and thats a stupid thing to say, and you are stupid for dying on this hill. What a fucking loser
That means he admires your prose, as do i, and you can just say thank you.
Not being able to grasp that effectively proves your judgement on his IQ might be off. Or being a rage monkey occasionally needs an on/off switch. It’s as easy as picking up on psyche.
In this case, you shoulda coulda quit while you were ahead. You had me sold
You absolutely do, and even the Supreme Court has sided that you have some expectation of privacy. Blanket “you don’t have a right to privacy” is why I’m calling you a dumbass. The EFF even agrees with me.
I don’t know what empty rooms you’re in, but I’m not surprised I guess given the kind of creep you are.
EFF article
You should try reading that article yourself, which is about aggregated, long-term tracking (like GPS data or ALPR networks) and persistent surveillance over time, which is very different from the moment-to-moment visibility you have on a train.
Damn dude, you look really fucking stupid here, do you want to try again?
Actually you’re the one looking fucking stupid, here.
The idea that we don’t have the right to privacy in public was first argued in regards to legitimate use of cameras in public and when a video maker does (or doesn’t) need to get your permission.
If you’re caught on camera incidentally during a news story about a house fire. Or you’re in the background of a surveillance tape of a robbery they’re showing on the news. Or traffic cameras, or cop dash cams. Legitimate uses where public interest is a priority.
If a filmmaker is shooting a scene on location (for an example of the other direction), and they happen to catch some members of the public, they need to get those people to sign a consent form, or else they can’t use the footage. This is the law, I believe, EVERYWHERE that has ever argued this in court.
So yes, while there are legitimate reasons that a person’s privacy is considered able to be suspended (such as news in the public interest), contributing to some incel’s spank-bank isn’t one of those reasons. And you’re a fucking idiot if you don’t grasp that concept.
You couldn’t be more wrong. You’re conflating commercial image rights, public interest reporting, and actual privacy rights. You can be filmed in public all day legally; you just might not be able to sell your image commercially without a release. Public visibility doesn’t give you privacy - that’s why cops, traffic cams, and news footage can film you legally. Filmmakers needing consent is about commercial exploitation of someone’s image, not a magic ‘right to not be seen.’ And just because some uses are gross doesn’t suddenly create a legal privacy right. Public exposure ≠ privacy. Period. Oh, and fucking idiot = you.
So you agree you have a right to privacy in public? How are you soooo close to getting it and then losing the fucking plot.
jesus christ your ego can’t let you admit you’re wrong. What a fucking clown you are lol. No you do not “have a right to privacy in public” and thats a stupid thing to say, and you are stupid for dying on this hill. What a fucking loser
Damn did you polish your comment to mirror finish?
lol, what does that even mean, you fucking clown
That means he admires your prose, as do i, and you can just say thank you.
Not being able to grasp that effectively proves your judgement on his IQ might be off. Or being a rage monkey occasionally needs an on/off switch. It’s as easy as picking up on psyche.
In this case, you shoulda coulda quit while you were ahead. You had me sold
Nah, he was commenting on my edit of a typo.