Mass Surveillance. And depending on how yoy feel about it, it could be described as harrassment. That's how i feel when i am forced to use android by banks or government institutions with whom i have no choice but to deal with.
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
19 points (91.3% liked)
Privacy
49339 readers
786 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
I feel the same way. But the question is rather: what would be the term that would describe the quality, of not being surveilled or harassed for that matter, which applies in any context (private or public)?
Privacy? Dignity? Self-determination?
Or even worse, google play services
Its worse than that, they enforce google android. I could do play services in a secondary profileon graphene, but 2 of my banks and my car dont work even then.
Hell, even on a google infested android one of the bank aps wont even open unless i switch from fossify keyboard back to the default keylogger
Needless to sy none of these problems existed when i bought the car / opened the bank accounts
You never had “effective” expectation of privacy in public.
What you’re talking about has nothing to do with privacy.
Its not private information that you drove down the (public, before someone brings up the specter of private roads) road, went to McDonald’s then went to the porno store.
What you’re upset about it how much more easily people can connect those pieces of information and access them.
The cat can’t be put back in the bag, what you gotta do is be one of those psychopaths who use tag obfuscation and wear face masks around.
What you’re talking about has nothing to do with privacy.
That's why they asked for a term like that.
Relatively speaking. These patterns were extremely unlikely to be uncovered (unless, again, you were a worthy enough target to allocate resources to); and therefore such information might as well be considered "effectively" private.
What you’re upset about it how much more easily people can connect those pieces of information and access them.
Yes. The pieces were either not available, or would be way too resource-intensive to piece together: simply to generate the type of insights outlined in your scenario.
The cat can’t be put back in the bag, what you gotta do is be one of those psychopaths who use tag obfuscation and wear face masks around.
A defeatist mindset can only result in defeat, while we're still amidst the rollout. I'm not quite sure what you mean with "tag obfuscation", but there's nothing "psychopathic" about wearing masks, solely in an effort of protecting one's personal information, from potentially being used in a malicious manner. What is psychopathic however, is subjecting innocent persons to that sort of tyranny, and victim-blaming them whenever they resist.
Tag obfuscation is like those plate covers that are polarized or shaded or whatever.
I think recognizing and accepting how you’re gonna look when you take steps to protect your privacy is the first step. You’re gonna have to be able to respond the first time someone calls your pink tinted eyeglasses and shiesty schizo because it’s not about to be the last. I’m speaking as someone with those pink tinted glasses and pull up neck gaiter .
I also think you might not remember the amount of stuff you’d just end up putting together about people you see all the time just because they’re in the same place as you at the same time.
What might be helpful to you is to drop the phrase “effectively private” because what you’re describing is not privacy or effectively privacy. It feels like a loss of privacy but what was actually lost was anonymity.
Ah, I see. Then I'd argue that which applies to masking, similarly applies to tag obfuscation. And ideally the plate would remain readable in case of disputes (as would recognition of a face), but mass-surveillance systems have taken that nuance from the equation.
If overall collection of personal data isn't a concern (which it is for me), and the focus is solely on sabotaging automated systems: clothing with confusing patterns may throw off classifications, IR glasses might impair facial recognition, and dirt-like noise atop license plates might hinder character recognition; but the irony is, that one likely draws more attention to themselves in doing so (an officer being alerted upon failure, and likely required to manually review: potentially leading to an actual investigation).
I don't mind what most ordinary people know about me, unless they'd systematically collate those activities: especially for the purposes of exposing underlying patterns. If the persons involved or activities carried out weren't memorable, they are likely to be forgotten. And generally speaking: observations by an untrained person are hardly reliable, and they certainly lack the resolution of digital counterparts.
But that lack of anonymity directly translates to a potential privacy-implication. You may also argue that nothing is private, because you could put a gun on a person's head, and force them to give up any secret they have. Surveillance is equally involuntary, and similarly exposes details about one's private life, which where traditionally very unlikely to be extracted.
Your best bet is to start reading up on privacy and fourth amendment cases. Privacy is a right legally enshrined with very precise boundaries. Anonymity is not.
That distinction is extremely important because the things you’re describing are not violations of your privacy. Except when you describe coercion which is a different crime.
I want to be as clear as possible: I am not trying to have the philosophical conversation you are trying to have. I am trying to bring your concerns into the real world (which they’re about, tbf) and into the real realm of understanding of that world that the law corresponds to. Because ultimately that’s the lines you need to color inside and out whose geometry you need to be aware of.
Aside from actually answering the question: What are you trying to accomplish and where? Which no one will do, that’s the most help I can offer.
The discussion was about "effective privacy" in public: your every move not meticulously being monitored in it, and therefore effectively remaining unknown; despite technically falling under public "knowledge". I understand how "privacy" is typically interpreted in context of legal cases and law, and how it doesn't, or inadequately accounts for advances in technology: leading to formerly hidden public activities, possibly becoming uncovered as a result. If anything, I think we've clearly demonstrated the usefulness of a catch-all term, that generally doesn't discern between context, in which personal data is being collected; which was ultimately the intent of this post.
Actions in public are not “technically” public knowledge, they are public knowledge.
If you dont want to be observed, figure out how to avoid observation when in public.
Public activities are not hidden, they were simply not observed.
We can keep falling over these minor differences, but as far as I'm concerned it's a distinction without a difference, practically speaking. You seem to disagree, which is completely fine too. Have a good one! :)
The distinction has an explicitly defined difference with hundreds of years of history behind it in the us alone and severe consequences for misunderstanding it.
I don’t mind to disengage but these are not abstract concepts we’re discussing and treating them as such does more harm than good to anyone who reads what you say.
I think it's clear I can't convince you, you can't convince me, and that the only thing left is to respectfully disagree.
I am not trying to convince you of something. I am trying to help you to understand why using the word privacy as a stand in for what you mean (which is anonymity, btw) is a bad idea.
The big perspective shift for me, is not that I feel obliged to privacy in public. It's when the institution observing is so big and centralised that it becomes a power issue. I don't care if you (the people) see all that I do in public, I have nothing to hide. I do care when your agenda is to see everything and gain power from it.
Yes, exactly. If there's no systematic record-keeping of my activities by actual human beings, I have little reason for concern. But with advances in technology: increased coverage, data quality, retention periods, automated detection/tagging/notifying/reporting(/actioning) and real-time or low-friction sharing through networking; it has become such an undeniable vector for (future) abuse. There's nothing which can reasonably assure me, these systems aren't going be abused, because there's a track-record of abuse already, and the incentives for abuse are only gaining in strength.
Stalkflushed? Dunno.
On the thinking though, might there be any legal argument for unreasonable search and seizure? Yes there’s not expectation of privacy in public, but an officer might still be expected to have a warrant or at least probable cause before searching my car in a Walmart parking lot without my consent.
Sure I don’t expect privacy from Walmart’s security system, but I don’t have reason to think law enforcement is monitoring it at all times. 24/7 law enforcement surveillance seems like it should fall under “search” there, because unless you have reason to be watching me, you’re searching for something anyway.
And officers have literally been caught literally stalking people without warrant with these systems. How is that not unreasonable search?
So yes, there’s no expectation that the public should look the other way, but I should be able to expect to not have big brother looking over my shoulder at all times.