Symmetric surveillance & Symetric Approval
School lends laptops to students. Decides that it can watch the students while they're home (and under the authority of the parent not the school). Pervy looking male teacher takes a look at what appears to be only girl students in secret and explains to camera that they mostly put on their makeup and use the computer as a mirror (i.e. it's none of his business).
Did the kids agree to appear on PBS like that?
Switch that around, would the teacher be happy if the students could turn on a camera and watch him at home in secret? Sure he's a teacher and they are a student, but that just changes the privacy abuse into an abuse of power. It changes the nature of the abuse not the fact it's bad.
The key point comes up again and again. IF PEOPLE KNEW THEY WERE BEING WATCHED, WOULD THEY AGREE IT? So if he'd Skyped into their computer, and they'd accepted the call voluntarily, then that would be OK, it would be an agreed exchange of information.
If you're still not sure if watching teens on secret cameras is bad if done by teachers, swab every computer he uses for traces of semen, and get back to me on whether you've changed your mind.
Politicians and data. How many times have they approved a database and added an exception that their own kids data and celebrity kids data is not included. Look at the car registration, they drive around on TV and the plate is blanked out, yet DVLA continues to hand private data out on request! Without even notifying the owner, or seeking their approval!
Look at the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, he lives in HU1, the rest of his address is blanked out on his expenses. Why? Because he had the ability to approve whether that data should be given out and clearly refuses. He does not quote it, whenever it is displayed it is blanked out. When given the ability to approve the release of private data, people say NO.
i.e. people who approve intrusive surveillance for others don't want it for themselves.
Yet technology marches on, I know his address has a 'g' as the second or third letter (the tail poked out from the blanking out), he lives in HU1, it could be anyone of 3 streets. When Google street view is available, I'll be able to determine from the police and cars which house is his all while sitting at my desk outside the UK.
i.e. it's getting worse, and if the Home Secretary can't protect their private data, what chance has the man on the street?
Does being on the street mean you give up the right to privacy? No. It does not mean you give up the right to privacy anymore than if you were in a room with 2 people. The expectation of the room is that you will be watched by 2 people, if they had secret cameras and recorded your every action, then that is a departure from the expectation of relative privacy. The fact the person keeps the camera secret confirms that they know there is no agreement to film.
Likewise I am on a street corner, and Blunketts eyes are recording my every move to ENSURE I'M NOT A CRIMINAL, I am not agreeing to that and the CCTV camera is kept well out of my line of sight so as not to upset me. The fact the camera isn't in your face pointing at you confirms the lack of consent to be watched.
If CCTV cameras were in your eye line painted orange with a flashing light on them to indicate they are on you would not be happy.
So where is the individual consent to lose their individual right of privacy? It's lost in the data watch dog, he cannot consent to all the misuses of my personal data, yet he gives fake consent for uses of my data that I do not consent to.
Even though I do not want my personal data released, I would like it released on every politicians. This is why MY personal data in MINE to approve the release of. It is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, not a collective one and no data watchdog should be able to approve uses without my consent.
Take your surveillance society and shove it. There is no symmetric consent, there is no symmetric surveillance and the 'Data Protection Apparatchik' cannot give away my privacy on my behalf.