In a similar vein, if any of you haven't been on Hot Topics, I posted a thread on something incredibly alarming regarding what's going in US law enforcement regarding DNA. I believe we have a right to privacy and when we expect those we've asked to protect it don't, there's a huge issue. Chilling is a great word for what I find it.

Privacy as we knew it no longer exists. It is already lost to us. Scares me

and shames me for the World we are leaving for our kids, grandkids.

AI and electronic connectedness is a double-edged sword. How far will be "too far"? Must we give up the good, to avoid the bad? Are we prepared as a society to confront and resolve the difficulties ... well, I hope the young people are because it's yet another problem coming at them (sigh).

Edited to add a specific example: a few years ago when my dad was still driving, and lost his way on a short drive (memory issues), he was missing for almost 12 hours. How we wished there were ways of tracking him then.

Do you think that we should be willing to go along with losing our privacy to make use of new technology?

One new tech is facial recognition. I'm not thrilled that others can at this point track and recognize me wherever I go if they choose to use that technology. I would have been even less thrilled in my sometimes misspent youth. But if my grand daughter should God forbid go missing or get kidnapped, I'd be all for any technology that could get her back to her parents.

Good topic!!

its a double edge sword as shown be examples above. everything is a trade off.

what China is doing is mostly political, that's a whole other discussion and very scary.

As Uptown Gal says, we've already lost our privacy. Corporations know exactly who you are: your income, education level, what you like to shop for, who your relatives are, etc.

With pretty much just your name (unless it's John Smith), I can find out where you live, your phone number, how much you paid for your house, etc. All of that information is easy to find on Google, no elaborate hacking required.

I agree...Good topic!

In a perfect world, we'd catch "the bad guys" before they blow up a school.

Do you think that we should be willing to go along with losing our privacy to make use of new technology?

If it can help prevent another 9/11 from happening, then absof’inglutely we should.

I'm not sure it could prevent another 9/11....maybe only let us catch the unhumans quicker. How do you fix an off-the-rails mind set that has become

so common? They don't seem to care who sees them, or knows what they are planning as long as you talk about them. Sure wish the answer is

out there somewhere.

I am a grumpy old woman who should be living in a forest. I am still annoyed at my "privacy" being compromised by all the stupid security lights and cameras people are mounting outside their homes to feel safe. And that junk is low tech compared to what is available and coming.

As for online security that ship sailed a long while back. Bookwoman nailed it.

Responsible users of security cams and doorbells can respect your privacy by limiting their view to cover their property only. Of course you have to have respectful neighbors who abide by those recommendations. Don't blame the camera or doorbell, blame the lame users.

Understanding Privacy Zone

House purchases, transfers, taxes, past due taxes, etc., is public information, provided for free by the county auditor's office. That's been in practice since.......forever?All you need is the address.

You don't even have to have an address in my county. If you know the person's name, you can find the address and all the stuff you just listed, Michael.

Rob, if there's an obvious home improvement being made to a home in my HOA, the HOA checks to verify a permit has been issued. Improvements and permits are recorded on our site.

I remember phone books that printed everyone's name, address, and phone number who had a phone, unless they paid extra to have an unlisted phone number. And you could call directory assistance for the phone number of someone if you did not have a phone book for where they lived.

If you are in a public place, you have already given up some of your privacy by not staying at home or on your property. I think people and businesses have a right to have security cameras to protect their property. The alternative is not to have private property and no government property, which I think would lead to anarchy and chaos, not because it is not a good idea, but because of the nature of people. There will always be bad people, and we need to be able to protect ourselves against them.

I suppose it depends on what one defines as privacy and what type of privacy is being discussed. There is personal privacy such as being able to go about one's daily life fairly anonymously, financial privacy, medical privacy, etc. Of them all, personal privacy may be the easiest to protect by taking steps such as not posting personal info on social media such as FB, not carrying a phone with GPS ability, using cash only, not signing up for store club cards and so on, but one has to then ask themselves how far are they willing to go and what are they willing to give up in the way of convenience. I protect my privacy as much as possible, but also realize that it's not always possible.

The younger generation has grown up never having had full privacy and willingly give up what they have left without a thought via their phones and social media. I think many of the younger set are quite comfortable in this brave, new world of little to no privacy. You can't miss what you never had.

I think people and businesses have a right to have security cameras to protect their property.

I do too. However, your neighbor should take measures to limit view and voice recordings of your conversations on your front porch, driveway, sidewalk, etc. Your security device isn't intended for violation of privacy rights of others.

Most businesses warn of audio/video recording on premises. Audio/video recording on private property may be illegal in most states.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

Lars, earlier city directories (late 1890s to 1940s) went even farther -- in my genealogy research I find ancestors listed with home address, work address, name of employer, and job function (ie "knitter" in the garment industry).

Back then no one gave it a thought -- can you imagine the uproar that would cause today? Even though, as someone pointed out, with a search engine most of that info is easily found, and more if you are willing to pay a few dollars!

There really has never been as much privacy as some think there has been. While the old Sherlock Holmes books discussed how if you actually look at a person you can tell a lot about who and what they do that really was not that far from facial recognition. I used to do some what was called skip tracing way before computers and there is so much that you can discover by simply looking as mentioned above by several.

"Audio/video recording on private property may be illegal in most states."

I think this is incorrect. I'd be interested to know the source of this comment.

A simple reference to all the personal front door, interior and other cameras for security or otherwise that are now ubiquitous in homes suggests this comment is wrong.

I think "right to privacy" is a too frequently misunderstood canard. This is not a right of the same stature as the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yes, law enforcement has to respect certain boundaries in the performance of their duties. That's simply to keep THEIR conduct lawful and not unnecessarily intrusive. But necessarily intrusive within the law is fine.

What the IT revolution now enables is the accumulation, correlation and easy access to already public information, as others have said.

If the authorities and law enforcement want to be able to access information about people and places in the performance of their duties, we all benefit from that. If you think about it, there are many times that criminals have been apprehended because of cameras in public places. Remember how quickly the British authorities could identify and apprehend those involved in public transport terrorist bombings? How about the quick identification of the two brothers responsible for the Boston Marathon attack? All because of video recording.

As an example, I don't want them having access to my specific DNA. And if I submitted it to a company that promised to keep it private, law enforcement doesn't get to have it. As it is, my DNA is in a public database, but de-identified. And believe me, it's de-identified (let's don't go down this road, it's where I spend my work hours and I know what lengths have to be met and how much it is legally protected, even from medical personnel running studies, who collected the DNA. By federal law). They don't get anyone's private phone records [ETA, such as the texts sent or numbers dialed] without a court order, right? Or personal health information. There are limits to personal privacy. It's not ok for them to collect personal information and then disseminate it. Ever. For any reason. Not in the US. We don't trample every citizens' rights to catch one or two criminals. Well, before the Patriot Act, we didn't. It's getting out of hand.