Slightly tangential since you're specifically discussing communication but I've noticed that the term "privacy" is often getting incorrectly used when discussing surveillance tech (e.g. face recognition).
There is no expectation of privacy in a public place.
But an important right in a free society is the right to anonymity.
A street is not a private place and, as said, there is no expectation of privacy there: Anyone and everyone can see you and what you are doing.
But you should have the right to remain anonymous as long as you do not breach the law. That's what called into question these days with e.g. automatic facial recognition.
> A street is not a private place and, as said, there is no expectation of privacy there: Anyone and everyone can see you and what you are doing.
Only people physically there can see me and what I am doing. Modern technology enables them to record that and share it globally and across time. It's important to recognize that this ability is not inherent in it being a public place.
"Expectation of privacy" and that you can't have it in a public street is a US-centric concept. Other societies draw the line differently.
Your link does not mention anything about her being in a public space, and it's difficult to comment on a specific case without knowing all the details.
In the UK there is no expectation of privacy in public places and anyone can film or take pictures in public. Case in point: the flourishing tabloid industry of celebrity pictures.
The ICO is about data protection. Even websites processing personal data must register with the ICO.
She was on the street. MGM tried to say, as you are here, that because she was on the street she had no expectation of privacy. English courts disagreed.
> In the UK there is no expectation of privacy in public places and anyone can film or take pictures in public.
I've just linked you to a case where that was shown to be untrue.
> The ICO is about data protection.
Data protection is one of the laws that prevents people just setting up a CCTV camera to record public spaces. If you set up a CCTV camera in England that records the street you need to register it with ICO. What you can do with the images is limited because data protection law. You're claiming that because there's no expectation of privacy on the street someone can just run CCTV and do what they like with those images. They can't in England.
You said
> never been a concept anywhere
This is nonsense. See eg German or French law.
> In some jurisdictions it is an actionable wrong to publish a photograph of a person taken without consent – see Markesinis and Unberath – the German Law of Torts 4th Ed. at pp.75 and 445 and Dalloz 101 Ed. of the French Code Civil, notes at paragraph 15 on Article 9 of the Code
I'm giving you at least one clear example where someone in public had an expectation of privacy and that was upheld by English courts.
I've also showed that English data protection laws provide an expectation of privacy and restrict what type of filming and photography people do in public places.
> But I will say that there is no legal restriction on filming a public space in England.
For fuck's sake, there are at least 3 and probably more.
1) Naomi Campbell case above
2) Data protection forbids certain kinds of filming in public
3) "This is a prohibited place within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act" -- try standing on a public street filming a location that has these signs up and see how far you get.
> Expectation of privacy in public places has never been a concept anywhere
It's certainly a concept in Europe, see the famous Caroline cases. Quoting for example from the European Court of Human Rights case von Hannover v. Germany
> The Court notes at the outset that in the present case the photos of the applicant in the various German magazines show her in scenes from her daily life, thus involving activities of a purely private nature such as engaging in sport, out walking, leaving a restaurant or on holiday. The photos, in which the applicant appears sometimes alone and sometimes in company, illustrate a series of articles with such innocuous titles as “Pure happiness”, “Caroline... a woman returning to life”, “Out and about with Princess Caroline in Paris” and “The kiss. Or: they are not hiding anymore” [...] The Court reiterates the fundamental importance of protecting private life from the point of view of the development of every human being’s personality. That protection – as stated above – extends beyond the private family circle and also includes a social dimension. The Court considers that anyone, even if they are known to the general public, must be able to enjoy a “legitimate expectation” of protection of and respect for their private life [...] Furthermore, the Court considers that the public does not have a legitimate interest in knowing where the applicant is and how she behaves generally in her private life even if she appears in places that cannot always be described as secluded and despite the fact that she is well known to the public.
The court's argument does not hinge on the "widely publicized" nature but on her "legitimate expectation of protection of and respect for their private life". If you still want to argue semantics, I would like to quote the ECHR again (P.G. and J.H. v. The United Kingdom)
> There are a number of elements relevant to a consideration of whether a person’s private life is concerned by measures effected outside a person’s home or private premises. Since there are occasions when people knowingly or intentionally involve themselves in activities which are or may be recorded or reported in a public manner, a person’s reasonable expectations as to privacy may be a significant, although not necessarily conclusive, factor.
Here you have it on the record: Someone arguing that you can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. In conclusion, there are places in this world where this is a legally protected concept. Case closed.
Just because a case involves publication it does not mean that legal concepts developed therein only apply to that. Anyhow, the quoted P.G. and J.H. vs The United Kingdom in my last reply specifically deals with surveillance. You may find the court's arguments nonsensical but you can't stand by the fact that this has never been a concept anywhere. It certainly is a concept there. I even quoted you the court's assessment that when talking about public places you have to consider their "reasonable expectations as to privacy".
Right, I've had a look at the case you mentioned and it so happens that it has nothing to do with expectation of privacy in public places, but is about covert police wiretapping of phone lines and of private premises, and acceptability of evidence in court.
In fact, the paragraph you quoted previously is immediately followed by the following (which you left out by mistake, I'm sure):
> A person who walks down the street will, inevitably, be visible to any member of the public who is also present. Monitoring by technological means of the same public scene (for example, a security guard viewing through closed-circuit television) is of a similar character.
I.e. video surveillance of public space is fair game. The issue is with permanent record and automated processing (as per the case right after the excerpt above), which is not too different from what I have been saying.
The paragraph I left out is exactly the argument in my very first reply.
You can't expect the whole world to share your definition of the word "privacy". If they did, my last quote would have been utter nonsense. This is all what I have been saying. When people talk about privacy in this context, they mean something different than what comes to your mind. This does not make them wrong in using that word.
It's not my definition of the word. It is the definition.
People who complain about being filmed when in public because that would breach their privacy do not understand what a public place is, or do not understand what privacy means. This is clear from all this discussion.
As those "people" include basically any European legal practitioner I'm not sure you are in a position to tell all of them that they made such a basic fundamental mistake.
You're referencing old ideas of public and private life that made sense at a time. Those ideas did not form in a time with ubiquitous surveillance. The ideas may have made sense before in their historical context, but that doesn't mean they make sense today.
How about instead you ask yourself why those ideas grew out of that older historical context and whether the same reasoning would apply today? Why not re-read this and think about what germanier means:
> Only people physically there can see me and what I am doing. Modern technology enables them to record that and share it globally and across time. It's important to recognize that this ability is not inherent in it being a public place.
Imagine you are taking a walk in the forest. The forest is a public place (where I live anyway!) – anyone can walk anywhere they want. Eventually, later in the day, you might need to take a leak, so you do what everyone normally does – go behind a tree.
Do you in this situation expect to be photographed and have high-resolution pictures of your genitals posted to Instagram? Don't you think this, if it were a regular occurrence, would interfere with people's age-old custom of enjoying a quiet walk in the public forest?
There are still degrees of this across the world. In certain places, wearing face covering is banned. In others its literally forced on 50% of the population to obscure their head and/or face. Some places don't care at all.
Same goes for tinted glass on vehicles.
Not saying any of these position is ethical or not.
That's a boneheaded excuse: if the comment was about improving privacy it would be highlighting mitigation strategies, not focussing on exploiting potential vulnerabilities.
