[extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette

[Harvey Newstrom]

On Wednesday, April 14, 2004, at 01:09 am, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> On Apr 11, 2004, at 8:39 AM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
>> Wearable Camera Etiquette is more complicated than people think.  
>> There are many times where people won't want to be recorded.  
>> Ettiquette should include:
>>
>> - don't record in bookstores where you can record published content 
>> without paying for it
>
> We very much need to move to a world where creators are paid without 
> limiting the full availability and spread of knowledge, information 
> and entertainment.

Agreed.  The patenting of information by corporations so that nobody 
else can use it is a big problem for scientific research right now.  
Most science is being done in a way that it cannot be shared or 
externally replicated.

>> - don't record near cash registers where you can record people's 
>> credit cards
>
> Credit cards will disappear in favor of biometric databases or 
> embedded chips rather quickly.

True, but there may be a period of overlap between new technology 
arriving and old technology not going away.  We still have DOS users 
out there, remember!

>> - don't record near public phones or ATMs where you can record 
>> people's PIN numbers
>
> What pin numbers?  What ATMs?  Old technology that needs replacing as 
> human abilities and technology accelerates.

True, same as above.

>> - don't record while using the phone where you can break wiretapping 
>> laws
>
> We need to get to a society quickly where it is assumed that 
> everything witnessed by any person was "remembered" in full fidelity 
> and is fully shareable with others.   Anything less than this limits 
> all of us.

This sounds good to some people, but I am sure there are other people 
who do not desire this.  We need a society that allows both choices to 
coexist with each other.  I don't think people fear other people's 
technology as much as they fear it will impose itself on people who 
don't want it.

>> - don't record near computers in use where you can record people's 
>> keystrokes or passwords
>
> What passwords?  "Talk to the hand!"

Even if passwords go away, there will be some privacy desires by some 
people.

>> - don't record when copyrighted music is playing or near TVs or in 
>> theatres or during performances where you can record copyrighted 
>> materials without permission
>
> This copyright system is broken as it limits technology and its 
> application, criminalizes large swaths of the public and is far and 
> away out of control.

No argument here.

>> - don't record anybody if you plan to publish your recording and you 
>> don't have contracts for these people to appear in your video
>
> See above answer.

This is more difficult.  Do we really want to tell people not to 
venture out of their homes if they don't want to be recorded and 
published?  Or if people have a wardrobe malfunction just walking down 
the street, do other people have a natural "right" to record it and 
publish it on the Internet?  Even where privacy is not guaranteed or 
required, there still might be standard politeness that requires that 
one not stare/record/publish at people.

>> - don't record anybody talking if you aren't part of the 
>> conversation, because microphones can pick up speech beyond your 
>> hearing range, where you can "bug" people who think they are having a 
>> private conversation
>
> Are we then to limit human enhanced senses?   A private conversation 
> should be encrypted not dependent on limiting the abilities of others.

But the other extreme is just as bad.  We can't tell people that they 
can't have any private communications out of a sealed security vault.  
This would end going out to dinner on a date if people start recording 
other people's conversations remotely and publishing them on reality 
TV.  I am sure restaurants will ban this technology like many ban 
cellphones when they started disturbing other people.

If we stress that we have a "right" to record people at a distance just 
because our technology has improved, what is to keep them from claiming 
the "right" to see under you clothes, or into your brain, or to block 
your senses when you look in their direction?  Do we really want 
personal technology wars between strangers on the street?  I think 
people will retain basic rules of etiquette and politeness, and will 
rebel when they are pushed too far.

>> - don't record near bridges, airports, train stations, bus stations, 
>> tall buildings, banks or other possible terrorist or criminal 
>> targets, or the feds might think you are casing the location for 
>> future attacks
>
> Screw the Feds and their outrageous limitations on the people under 
> the pretense of "fighting terrorism".

Agreed that they are going to far.  I am just pointing out the obvious 
reactions to people who assert their right to record everything they 
want.  Private people, corporations, and governments are going to 
object to this attitude.  This was the same claim made by hackers who 
said they had this ability to see the data, and if they weren't 
prevented, it was fair game.  The social and political evolutions has 
turned out that hackers are considered criminals and terrorists.  I 
suspect a similar reaction to enhanced humans recording information 
that other humans don't want them to record.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>