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.
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.