News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Schneier's response to Eric Schmidt by csallen on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @05:52PM (#986804)
I think the point of contention here is the definition of "invasion of privacy." (The op didn't mention this term by the way, he just said "watched".) Anyone would agree that having their privacy invaded is bad, but you can talk to 10 different people and get 10 different opinions on what constitutes an invasion.

What I want someone to do is justify their claim, point by point, that what Google does with information is an outright invasion of privacy.

Re:Schneier's response to Eric Schmidt by netcan on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @06:01PM (#986826)
You're right. Asking you to accept anything as inherent is a big deal. If you do, you should have privacy pretty well defined.

I think that the problem is that private vs public is often a question of expectations. People know that when you sit in your car people can see you & when you site in your house people usually can't. If you become viewable (public) while in your house it feels like an "invasion" whether it is malicious (telescope) or not (neighbour's new attic window).

When we talk about privacy in complicated, non obvious & changing circumstances, people constantly feel invaded because they find out that they might be in public when they thought they where in private.

I think that invasion of privacy is mostly about knowing where you are at any given time & having private as an option.