Here's an abstract question for you about privacy?

[asdfjkl]

PDQ - I may delete this later.  

[ECB]

My gut reactions:

1- I kind of expect that to happen, I guess, to a certain degree. In this day and age - to expect that we'll NEVER be captured on video/picture is short-sighted. If being done for research and assuming the researchers are professionals and will do what they're supposed to do- if they will simply delete my image, i wouldn't expect to be notified.

2- I feel that the right thing to do here is to report the abuse.

3- This is a huge "it depends" for me - who the person is, what they're wearing, why/how the data will be used and what exactly of me is being captured.

[simpsongal]

Gut reactions
1- I don't have a strong reaction to this. It sort of reminds me of the dust up over airport security scanners that can practically see you naked. There's just so much data out there, like who really cares?

2- Hard to suppress the lawyer in me but I recall there are statutes in various jurisdictions about recording. I think sometimes you need to disclose in advance. But if it's a public place like a park, I suspect there's no expectation of privacy. I think the researchers can probably turn over the tapes freely to the authorities (and should).

3- See answer above, depends on the law. I suspect if they're wearing the device to capture their own data and the researchers don't care about other people's data, then they probably don't have to give a warning under current laws (but I'd have to check the law).

[Nonny]

I would be fucking furious if a video was taken of me in a locker room, even accidentally, by someone's wearable device.  If it's in a place where I have a reasonable expectation of privacy - locker room, bathroom, spa, changing room at Target, my own home - I feel like every precaution/safe guard necessary needs to be taken to make sure video/photos aren't being taken.  All of the gyms I've belonged to had strict 'no phone' policies to makes sure people weren't being filmed naked, and in the nicer gym if was definitely enforced.  My naked body is mine, and you don't get to record it.  If you do, then yes, you need to tell me, because I've been violated and you need to be sanctioned in some way even if you delete the image (because as I've said time and time again, images can never truly be deleted). 

I have much less of a visceral reaction when it comes to voice recording though.  I kind of just assume that the next table over is eavesdropping, and that the NSA, Apple, and Microsoft is recording everything we say for all of the voice commands we give and the conversations we have.  I go around having random conversations with everyone all the time, so to me my voice isn't a private entity in the same way my body is.

I would assume that if a device records a crime, then said crime should be reported for investigation, regardless if the crime is against the wearer or a 3rd party.  I'm a little less sure if the onus of the reporting should be on the wearing of the device or on the researchers.  I would assume the researchers, because I wouldn't necessarily assume the wearer of the device is aware of the crime being committed.  For example, say I'm wearing a GoPro on my helmet as I'm riding my bike, it could maybe pick up some subtly of a car accident at an intersection that I might not have even seen at all because I was stopped and reaching for my water bottle when it happened. 

[nomad100]

1. I would be pissed! While I do realize when I am out in public, I am likely being recorded, a locker room is not public. So I have an expectation that there will not be cameras or other recording devices in use in those spaces. I don't think that is unreasonable.

2. Researchers should absolutely contact the police if they see abusive activity, no matter the victim or perpetrator.

3. I don't like the idea of someone's device recording my voice or image whenever I am with them, so I am in the "you need to tell everyone you talk to" camp. Then the other person can decide what they want their level of exposure to the recording to be. I personally, would like be "call me when you take that off" but I am not a fan of the idea that just because I am hanging out with a friend, that means I give permission to record me. There is a reason why I never signed up to do reality tv. I don't want to be recorded all the time.


I would say that the logistics of this on a larger scale would need more research into state laws covering recordings. My state (based on my quick Googling) seems to have pretty strong laws regarding the recording of others without their knowledge, as in, it can't be done.

[WanderingWinoZ]

i think there are already quite a few laws about expectation of privacy (home or locker room or dressing room) and laws about recording (audio or video) of somebody, but i think they vary greatly by state.

I generally expect that in public, I could be filmed at any time.

yes, abuse should always be reported.

I think if the device is noticeable to others, then that serves as notice. I.e. don't use a hidden camera.

It's interesting- I've started reviewing a lot of body camera footage for cops for my work & in some places, it must be protocol that they cover the camera with their hand while interviewing witness. I htink once they determine it's somebody involved 7 will be named in the report, they can show a face.

[isabel]

As to your scenarios, the first wouldn't bother me (eta: I was thinking audio. Video wouldn't bother me necessarily, but I think I'd be upset if I was videoed naked or in a vulnerable state) and I would say no to the third.

As to the second, yes, abuse should always be reported no matter how the information was obtained. Reporting it does nothing more than allow for an investigation and I don't see any issue with that.

Personally, this stuff doesn't bother me. We live in an age of technology and there is information out in the world about me that I will never even be aware of. I'm sure it's a somewhat generational thing, but as long as the information wasn't stored, it wouldn't bother me that it was erroneously recorded.

[LoveTrains]

In Massachusetts it is illegal to record the voice of anyone else without notifying them, so anything that might accidentally record a voice of another person should not be used. You might check to see if there are other states with two party consent to recordings because this might also apply. E

[pixy0stix]

Dust up over the scanners? That just tells me that people really don't understand all the issues with the porn ovens.

[pixy0stix]

I get naked in locker rooms. I really don't want to be recorded accidentally or not in one.

[asdfjkl]

My guess is that the legal recording requirements have an intentionality component to them (i.e. you are intending to record a certain person) and incidental recording is not included.  Haven't looked - it's just a guess.  But if intentionality is not a component then the FB messenger app (which "listens" in order to provide you with more targeting marketing) is illegal.  

[msmerymac]

Jun 24, 2016 13:08:21 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

My guess is that the legal recording requirements have an intentionality component to them (i.e. you are intending to record a certain person) and incidental recording is not included.  Haven't looked - it's just a guess.  But if intentionality is not a component then the FB messenger app (which "listens" in order to provide you with more targeting marketing) is illegal.  

Why would it be? My guess is that they have drafted all kinds if CYA language that you agree t by downloading the app, including blanket consent to record.

[andwhat]

1. There could be legal repercussions if you record someone in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. You need to know the state laws on this. For example, in my area a person has to STEALTHILY look where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. I wouldn't call this stealthily. But since you know it is a possibility I think you need to find out the law here.

2. If you see a crime you need to report the crime. Period.

3. Depends on what kind of device it is.

This all seems like it could get into some problem legal areas. I would just make sure you have the law down pat on this.

[asdfjkl]

Jun 24, 2016 13:41:31 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Jun 24, 2016 13:08:21 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

My guess is that the legal recording requirements have an intentionality component to them (i.e. you are intending to record a certain person) and incidental recording is not included.  Haven't looked - it's just a guess.  But if intentionality is not a component then the FB messenger app (which "listens" in order to provide you with more targeting marketing) is illegal.  

Why would it be? My guess is that they have drafted all kinds if CYA language that you agree t by downloading the app, including blanket consent to record.

YOU agree to it.  The person sitting next to you on the L whose voice is also recorded by the Messaging App did not agree to it.  But it's not illegal.  AFAIK.

[asdfjkl]

Jun 24, 2016 13:43:30 GMT -5 andwhat said:

1. There could be legal repercussions if you record someone in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. You need to know the state laws on this. For example, in my area a person has to STEALTHILY look where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. I wouldn't call this stealthily. But since you know it is a possibility I think you need to find out the law here.

2. If you see a crime you need to report the crime. Period.

3. Depends on what kind of device it is.

This all seems like it could get into some problem legal areas. I would just make sure you have the law down pat on this.

I'm not actually doing this.  I'm writing about people who are.

[andwhat]

Jun 24, 2016 12:17:27 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Dust up over the scanners? That just tells me that people really don't understand all the issues with the porn ovens.

The generation 2 scanners. Which I think is what is used in all airports now just have a drawing image with color boxes indicating the areas of different density. There is no image of an actual person. 

[andwhat]

Jun 24, 2016 13:44:49 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Jun 24, 2016 13:43:30 GMT -5 andwhat said:

1. There could be legal repercussions if you record someone in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. You need to know the state laws on this. For example, in my area a person has to STEALTHILY look where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. I wouldn't call this stealthily. But since you know it is a possibility I think you need to find out the law here.

2. If you see a crime you need to report the crime. Period.

3. Depends on what kind of device it is.

This all seems like it could get into some problem legal areas. I would just make sure you have the law down pat on this.

I'm not actually doing this.  I'm writing about people who are.

Ah. I completely misunderstood the OP. LOL Well those are things I would consider.

[aurora]

Uhm, I'd be absolutely furious if a video device recorded me in a locker room, and I'd expect whomever captured the video to be prosecuted by the law. Really. This is ludicrous. This is light years different from videos in public spaces. And I say that as someone who is not even particularly modest.

Since a park is a public place without expectation of privacy (as opposed to the locker room), I don't have a problem with the accidental video capture there and think the child abuse should be reported.

#3 depends. My friend doesn't need to inform me she's wearing a basic fitbit, but the audio and video recordings without notification are more problematic.

[downtoearth]

1. Locker room or other more "private" area. I would be upset and I would hope that the wearer understood that using the video function in a locker room or bathroom setting could put them in jeapordy for being responsible for that (and maybe litigation if they say, accidentally videoed my naked kid in the locker room in the background). I think the researcher is morally off the hook if you inform the participant of avoiding private changing room or bathroom locations when recording audio/video.

2. Public park accidental recording of child abuse. It's more public and anyone could report seeing child abuse or endangerment. Is the tracking device on the abuser/abused? Then you have the identity and can decide as a researcher, but if it's just a background picture or audio than you don't know who the kid or abuser is. This would have to be a manager researcher call bc if it was spamming that is one thing, but beating to a pulp is another. The researcher's moral obligation to turn this in would have to be on a case by case basis.

3. A person participating in research, intentionally, would need to be aware of their state's laws on recording. Some/Most states require you to inform a person, but not all. So if you are intentionally recording yourself and friends/coworker's interactions, you might be obligated to inform them. Sometimes you can keep recording even if they don't want bc they were informed. The researchers would have the obligation IMO to inform the participants that of these recoding rules for their state/states.

[sakoro]

Is this formal research? If so, you would have to go
through an Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval. They would look at the ethical impact of your research and weigh the benefits against the loss of privacy to non-research subjects. I am highly doubtful something like this would pass the IRB.

[asdfjkl]

Jun 24, 2016 14:09:31 GMT -5 sakoro said:

Is this formal research? If so, you would have to go
through an Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval. They would look at the ethical impact of your research and weigh the benefits against the loss of privacy to non-research subjects. I am highly doubtful something like this would pass the IRB.

I'm pretty well versed on IRB.  Things like this are already passing.  That's why I'm writing about it.

[Nonny]

Jun 24, 2016 13:46:53 GMT -5 andwhat said:

Jun 24, 2016 12:17:27 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Dust up over the scanners? That just tells me that people really don't understand all the issues with the porn ovens.

The generation 2 scanners. Which I think is what is used in all airports now just have a drawing image with color boxes indicating the areas of different density. There is no image of an actual person. 

Those scanners are absolutely still taking a naked image of you.  They made a software change to put a cartoon person over the image so the TSA flunkies  viewing the pictures aren't given the opportunity to make fun of your junk or ogle your bits.  But it can and does still virtually strip you naked and take a picture, and despite what they claim about deleting those images, they are not really deleted.  Deleting data and actually making it go away is a hugely involved process that involves either massive amounts of time spent overwriting disc space with junk data over and over and over again (which there is zero change the TSA is doing) or physically destroying the hard drives (again zero chance this is happening).

[asdfjkl]

Jun 24, 2016 14:52:50 GMT -5 Nonny said:

Jun 24, 2016 13:46:53 GMT -5 andwhat said:

The generation 2 scanners. Which I think is what is used in all airports now just have a drawing image with color boxes indicating the areas of different density. There is no image of an actual person. 

Those scanners are absolutely still taking a naked image of you.  They made a software change to put a cartoon person over the image so the TSA flunkies  viewing the pictures aren't given the opportunity to make fun of your junk or ogle your bits.  But it can and does still virtually strip you naked and take a picture, and despite what they claim about deleting those images, they are not really deleted.  Deleting data and actually making it go away is a hugely involved process that involves either massive amounts of time spent overwriting disc space with junk data over and over and over again (which there is zero change the TSA is doing) or physically destroying the hard drives (again zero chance this is happening).

Nonny - can you tell me more about this.  What does it really take to "delete" data?  Can you expand on what you've said above.  

Also, I'm deleting the OP now.  

[andwhat]

Jun 24, 2016 14:52:50 GMT -5 Nonny said:

Jun 24, 2016 13:46:53 GMT -5 andwhat said:

The generation 2 scanners. Which I think is what is used in all airports now just have a drawing image with color boxes indicating the areas of different density. There is no image of an actual person. 

Those scanners are absolutely still taking a naked image of you.  They made a software change to put a cartoon person over the image so the TSA flunkies  viewing the pictures aren't given the opportunity to make fun of your junk or ogle your bits.  But it can and does still virtually strip you naked and take a picture, and despite what they claim about deleting those images, they are not really deleted.  Deleting data and actually making it go away is a hugely involved process that involves either massive amounts of time spent overwriting disc space with junk data over and over and over again (which there is zero change the TSA is doing) or physically destroying the hard drives (again zero chance this is happening).

I haven't been to every airport in the US, but I have been to local ones in my area and they all have the generation 2 scanners. Or at least any one I have gone through. And I have gone to courses on the generation 2 scanner. No I don't work for TSA. If it is a generation 2 scanner it is not an actual image but a drawing due to people's concerns over the generation 1 images. But I am not going to debate the issue because I don't really care.

[asdfjkl]

Jun 24, 2016 15:04:18 GMT -5 andwhat said:

Jun 24, 2016 14:52:50 GMT -5 Nonny said:

Those scanners are absolutely still taking a naked image of you.  They made a software change to put a cartoon person over the image so the TSA flunkies  viewing the pictures aren't given the opportunity to make fun of your junk or ogle your bits.  But it can and does still virtually strip you naked and take a picture, and despite what they claim about deleting those images, they are not really deleted.  Deleting data and actually making it go away is a hugely involved process that involves either massive amounts of time spent overwriting disc space with junk data over and over and over again (which there is zero change the TSA is doing) or physically destroying the hard drives (again zero chance this is happening).

I haven't been to every airport in the US, but I have been to local ones in my area and they all have the generation 2 scanners. Or at least any one I have gone through. And I have gone to courses on the generation 2 scanner. No I don't work for TSA. If it is a generation 2 scanner it is not an actual image but a drawing due to people's concerns over the generation 1 images. But I am not going to debate the issue because I don't really care.

I think Nonny is making the distinction between the data that are gathered and the data displayed.  It takes a naked picture of you, then displays the "cartoon" for the TSA flunkies because there were reports of them taking cell phone pictures of the Gen 1 images and then sharing them around or calling friends over to look at the pictures on the scanner.  Now that picture is a cartoon, but the data taken is still your naked self.  

I don't go through the porn ovens.  Ever.  Cartoon or not.  Mostly I don't go through because it's fucking theater and I refuse to participate.  But also, I think the rays are harmful and the images are not responsibly stored.  

[Nonny]

Jun 24, 2016 15:03:41 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Jun 24, 2016 14:52:50 GMT -5 Nonny said:

Those scanners are absolutely still taking a naked image of you.  They made a software change to put a cartoon person over the image so the TSA flunkies  viewing the pictures aren't given the opportunity to make fun of your junk or ogle your bits.  But it can and does still virtually strip you naked and take a picture, and despite what they claim about deleting those images, they are not really deleted.  Deleting data and actually making it go away is a hugely involved process that involves either massive amounts of time spent overwriting disc space with junk data over and over and over again (which there is zero change the TSA is doing) or physically destroying the hard drives (again zero chance this is happening).

Nonny - can you tell me more about this.  What does it really take to "delete" data?  Can you expand on what you've said above.  

Also, I'm deleting the OP now.  

So, I'm far from an expert on this, so this is going to be a very simplified, dumbed down version of what happens.   It can also vary by type of hard drive, but this is basically why law enforcement can take peoples computers, run data recover on them, and bust them for things they thought they'd gotten rid of (and why on shows like Mr. Robot you'll see the hard core computer hackers doing things like physically drilling or burning their drives).

When you write digital data to your memory - this can be anything, a word document on your hard drive, or a photo on a sim card, space gets allocated for that bit of data, and a pointer to that data gets created (that's how your computer knows where on the HD/SIM/wherever to go looking for it).

When you delete it, it doesn't actually get removed from that space, the pointer gets "removed" - usually there is an intermediary step, like in Windows it gets put into the recycle bin.

Then you can tell it to "permanently" delete it, and then it's gone from your recycle bin - pointer and data are removed from your disc.

But that doesn't mean it's actually gone, because the space where the document/image/text message/video/whatever still kind of has a record that it used to contain some bit of data.  It's been a long time since I've had these classes... um... think of it kind of like a ghost image... like, if you press really hard on a pad of paper when you write with a pen, you can lightly pencil over the page underneath what you've written and recover (at least partially) what has previously been written.

With the right skills and tools you can take that ghost image and restore it to it's original state.  In order to prevent that from happening you need to overwrite the space where your original data was, and you need to do it with a lot of random junky data.  I don't want to use the word corrupt, because that's not exactly what's happening, but basically you are wrecking all the layers of the notepad to remove any semblance of the original data. 

Now, this isn't to say data recover is easy, fast, or cheap either.  If you accidentally delete all the photos on your SIM card like I did once, you realize it before you take any more pictures, and you have a techy husband who is less leery of malware than I am, you can get them back in about 1-2 hours.  LOL!  If I'd taken other pictures it probably wouldn't have been worth the time/effort to find beefier more expensive tools, but it still would have been possible to recover at least some of the pictures, because it's doubtful I would have overwritten everything.

I'm also a bit of a tinfoil hat wearer about the TSA and those damn porn scanners, in that I don't believe they are deleting the images in the first place even if they claim they are.  If someone managed to sneak anything onto a plane on their person, they'd absolutely want to go back and review those images and they can't exactly do that if they are deleted.  I have trust issues. 

[msmerymac]

What are examples of devices that record images without a person's consent?

I've also looked into some of the legal issues with the data collected by these fitness devices. The information is not protected by HIPAA. Apple has claimed they don't do anything with your health data, but LOL to that. It could also be the next frontier of hacking - stealing someone's mail order prescription and that kind of thing.

[Nonny]

Jun 24, 2016 15:04:18 GMT -5 andwhat said:

Jun 24, 2016 14:52:50 GMT -5 Nonny said:

Those scanners are absolutely still taking a naked image of you.  They made a software change to put a cartoon person over the image so the TSA flunkies  viewing the pictures aren't given the opportunity to make fun of your junk or ogle your bits.  But it can and does still virtually strip you naked and take a picture, and despite what they claim about deleting those images, they are not really deleted.  Deleting data and actually making it go away is a hugely involved process that involves either massive amounts of time spent overwriting disc space with junk data over and over and over again (which there is zero change the TSA is doing) or physically destroying the hard drives (again zero chance this is happening).

I haven't been to every airport in the US, but I have been to local ones in my area and they all have the generation 2 scanners. Or at least any one I have gone through. And I have gone to courses on the generation 2 scanner. No I don't work for TSA. If it is a generation 2 scanner it is not an actual image but a drawing due to people's concerns over the generation 1 images. But I am not going to debate the issue because I don't really care.

See asdfjkl,'s post, I am referring to the data they are collecting, and yes it is in fact a naked image of your body.  Those scanners see through your clothes, take a picture, then software puts up a cartoon image of a blobby generic person, and adds a flag to any area of your body that is deemed suspicious.