But perhaps not everything in the public space viewshed is public?

Are police allowed to stand on the street and look over your fence, or through your windows?

Are police allowed to leave a camera outside your house so they don't have to stand there while they look over your fence or through your windows?

This is particularly pertinent because the FBI happen to believe that everything that can be seen from public space is public. (And airspace more than a few meters above your house is also public.)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11912696 was on HN just a few months ago.

What the FBI (executive) believes is legal and what the courts (judicial) believe is legal will occasionally differ.

Also, if you were to stand on a public right-of-way and photograph an FBI building, you would quickly find that the FBI's beliefs about photography are a bit more nuanced, and a lot more hypocritical.

Usually, the courts take into account the typical movements of actual people when determining the expectation of privacy. If you put up an 8-ft privacy fence around your backyard, and an aerial camera can still see into it from unrestricted public airspace, that doesn't really matter, because you have made the gesture of enclosing a private space. The fence is a request for the public to honor your desire for privacy. Genuine privacy is what you get when the government builds a classified facility. Fences, restricted airspace, guards with guns, and locked windowless rooms. No private person can afford that, so we pretend that a fig leaf is as good as a tuxedo.

Actually some countries demand that the genitals should be kept hidden even in public spaces, and even beyond that many encryption advocates believe you have a right to use encryption even in public spaces.

I think there's a bit of a miscommunication that happens when people discuss 'privacy' in this area.

With the advent of unprecedented recording and computational resources, comes a new type of privacy, which I would call here (and is used in other places) the 'right to be forgotten'.

I absolutely think that you shouldn't expect privacy in the sense of "no-one should be looking at me", but I think you should be able to be able to assume that information about what happens in public is not kept indefinitely, and only used to track people who have been suspected of a crime (and had authorisation given for surveillance).

While lots of things don't generally change 'on a computer', the scale of some things change, and when the scale of what's possible changes that can and should encourage debate.

I disagree with this sentiment. To give an example that is a bit more emotional, I would strongly object to some stranger taking pictures of a young child playing in a public park.

> To give an example that is a bit more emotional, I would strongly object to some stranger taking pictures of a young child playing in a public park.

Talk about the worst argument ever. "Think of the children."

The child is in public. Am I allowed to see your child in public, or do I have to avert my eyes? If I can watch your child, I can photograph him/her.