“We developed a deep neural network that maps the phase and amplitude of WiFi signals to UV coordinates within 24 human regions. The results of the study reveal that our model can estimate the dense pose of multiple subjects, with comparable performance to image-based approaches, by utilizing WiFi signals as the only input.”
Just about all of them where the government is spying on their residents. Unless you think it’s alright if the government does it?
The poster made the claim:
And now you’re talking about the government spying. Total non sequitur that has nothing to do with what I was discussing.
The posters claim goes a bit further than just “can get a photo of you”. The poster originally mentions (and it’s integral to the point) that privacy shouldn’t be predicated on the idea that so long as you are behind closed doors (ie not in view) you have the expectation of privacy. You deliberately narrowed the scope. But please understand that technically my car and the contents thereof are covered by a right to privacy. To search my car lawfully in the US you’d require a warrant. Doesn’t matter if my car is parked on the street. But you could lawfully take a photo of me in that car pretty much anywhere in “public” and that would also be considered lawful. So, what exactly is the demarcation? Where is the line drawn and doesn’t that seem rather arbitrary?
The context of the poster you responded to’s point is that the government decides and makes a line between what is private and what isn’t. And that’s further defined and enforced by laws. When you take into account the number of tools governments the world over have developed to spy on their citizens and just how many of those are then made available to or leaked to the public, and further that some of them being used in public are perfectly legal that poster has a point. We did not draw the line in the sand the right way.
The poster said nothing about the state. They were talking about privacy. They gave a long list of things that we aren’t allowed to do even if we are “able” to do them, and then made the false claim that we are allowed to take pictures “just because we can.” Maybe they have beliefs about the line being in the wrong place for other things, but this submission is about a type of picture, and the poster specifically mentioned taking pictures. So me talking about picture makes perfect sense, bringing in the state searching your car makes next to zero sense.
The poster said absolutely zero about the state. None. Zilch. Zip. When you accused me of narrowing the scope, you were actually projecting your expansion of the scope.
But make no mistake about it, if a cop walks by your car and sees a dead body in the back seat, they don’t need to get a warrant to search your car…because there is no expectation of privacy…which is, of course, actually what we are talking about.
Who determines privacy? Who enacts the laws? How is privacy enforced? What happens when you report someone for invasion of privacy? I don’t understand how this issue can have context without mention of the state.
And we are allowed to take pictures just because we can. If I take your picture in public? Just about nothing you can do about it unless it breaches some other law (like what you mentioned with filming in bathrooms). There are specific things I can’t do with that photo, for instance if that person happens to be famous they may have a right to publicity and their image etc. But they don’t have rights to copyright or the like. Could I post their photo in a random online forum claiming they have done something illegal? Nope? Can I blackmail them? Nope. But I can absolutely use their photo in a copyrighted way for art or even business.
Sure, which is why I challenged them over jurisdiction on their false claim that you could take a picture wherever you want. You even seem to agree with me that that is not the case.
Because this is libel. You are allowed to say whatever you want, “unless it breaches some other law.” Just like your limits on what pictures you can take are not “just because you can” but “unless it breaches some other law.”
It all comes down to an expectation of privacy. You have none in a public space as what you are doing everyone else can see.
And the implication of their initial point, in the context of the submission, is that this type of “photography” would be allowed because “you can” and I argue that this would already be protected under current law that there is an expectation of privacy behind in your home. Like in many (it not all?) I can’t take a picture of you in your home through a window even if I can see you from a public space, because of the expectation of privacy.
That’s exactly what I mean though. It is libel. It’s not privacy law. That was the point of saying other laws. But I’m not sure that is what they OG meant when they said you could do whatever you want. I took that to mean an implication that there’s a lot of lawful things you can do with someone’s picture that you absolutely can gain legally, and should be a breach of their privacy under op’s defined parameters.
This is your first response to me. Can you explain to me how I could have possible figured out what you just said from your initial post? You’ve moved so far from your first post, without at any point admitting at any point that you were wrong or maybe misinterpreted something.
Stop trying to be right and start trying to figure out what’s right. You are clearly smart enough to do so.