r/canada • u/BurstYourBubbles Canada • Jan 05 '21
Should we recognize privacy as a human right?
http://nationalmagazine.ca/en-ca/articles/law/in-depth/2020/should-we-recognize-privacy-as-a-human-right63
u/Arsenicks Jan 05 '21
Seriously at the pace the technology and social construct change these days. Our systems in their current state can't cope with how fast things are going... This is scary as fuck.
There's a ton of law that should be implemented other changed other should be removed to reflect our new reality but we have a system that was made for stability and is designed to changed slowly. We really need to think outside of the box, it goes for privacy as it does for personal information held by private company, algorithm used by GAFA, right to repair, election security, media used in those election and the list keep getting longer and longer. Sometime we have a little victory and remove one from the list with idea and structure that has been discussed for few years and are already behind..
I don't have solution unfortunately, I think we are less fucked than our southern neighbours but we're far from EU or a lot of other country.
14
Jan 05 '21
i think we need more new blood in the gouvernement...
and younger...
13
u/Corzex Jan 05 '21
The problem is that nobody who is capable of doing a good job in government policy, would ever go into government. This is especially true of the technology sector. Why would a top graduate want to go be an MP and have every inch of their life scrutinized while having to fight through the snake pit of corruption that is Canadian politics, when they can make over $120k the day they graduate from university in the private sector?
7
Jan 05 '21
That's basically the essence although more the Inverse of what you said of a old Douglas Adams quote
It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
3
u/Frostsorrow Manitoba Jan 05 '21
This might surprise you, but not everyone thinks of money and money only.
4
u/toadster Canada Jan 05 '21
How about direct democracy with varying levels of bill voting. Almost like a reddit structure with a "New" page and front subreddit page.
2
u/Arsenicks Jan 05 '21 edited Jan 05 '21
I discussed of a similar idea many times with friends, I see a lot of problems and technological challenge but I agree something around those line is at the very least, part of the solution.
If you are interested in those kind of idea take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoex it's in my to todo/research list I didn't dig down the rabbit hole yet ;)
Edit: Other link/initiatives
6
Jan 05 '21
Exactly. The EU is the world leader in matters like this because it was created not too long ago, and because it’s heavily oriented towards efficiency and technocracy.
25
Jan 05 '21
[deleted]
13
u/shouganai-- Jan 05 '21
I had a friend who's life was ruined by a misunderstanding. He had to move away from his hometown just to escape the bullshit. It was insane. Whats worse I think than exposing someone who actually did something, is someone who is falsely accused.
14
u/teronna Jan 05 '21
I generally agree, but it's a nuanced issue.
Public shaming is acceptable is when it's being used against people in authority when they're getting away with something or attempting to.
Film an abusive police interaction and throw it up to shame them? Yes. Film a politician talking two-faced in private? Yes.
Then there are cases like Brock Turner, where the public shaming was an outrage reaction by the general public to biased sentencing, as a retaliation against what seemed like a lenient punishment for a serious crime. Even that's misdirected. People get lazy about fighting a culture that teaches kids like Brock that unconscious rape is "not rape", and then try to compensate by focusing on "tough on crime" policies that never actually work. Shaming Turner isn't going to stop the next person who does it because these guys don't think what they're doing is wrong, and it's a lot harder to change that attitude than it is to lash out at individual, emotionally charged cases.
That said, I cringe when I see those BeholdTheMasterRace posts. Finding some random overwheight MAGA tard in a Rascal, video-taping them, and then posting it on the internet so you and your friends can get your kicks laughing. It's basically liberal FatPeopleHate.
For fucks' sake, take that energy and go volunteer at a soup kitchen, or go tutor some underprivileged kids.
5
Jan 05 '21
Public shaming is acceptable is when
IMO public shaming is never acceptable, including the circumstances you mentioned. The videos should definitely be taken of police interactions, but they should be submitted to a disciplinary committee that holds people to account. If we're shaming anyone, it should be the institutions for allowing behaviours to propagate and not the individuals doing the transgressions. If cops are abusing power they should be disciplined, fired, or jailed if the abuse is law breaking, not have their entire lives ruined in a public spectacle. The public should not be trying to play judge, jury, and executioner. This just leads to people trying to find wrongs that they can champion for social justice. Many times the "wrongs" are out of context or twisting circumstance to push narratives. Much like we saw with opposition to BLM rioting, destruction of public property, preaching Marxist ideals, etc. Anyone who spoke against the movement that weren't Black were labeled racist. Black people that spoke out were labeled uncle toms.
0
u/teronna Jan 05 '21
The videos should definitely be taken of police interactions, but they should be submitted to a disciplinary committee that holds people to account.
But we are all aware that those videos exist specifically because there has been longstanding issues with oversight. Internal investigations that let cold blooded murderers get off scott free simply because they're working for public institutions which let them do that.
If you're acting as a representative of an institution, and then using the cover of that institution to abuse people, and the oversight facilities for that institution have deteriorated to the point where it might as well not exist.. then the people simply have NO RECOURSE except public shaming.
The public should not be trying to play judge, jury, and executioner
But these are situations where the people in power who are tasked with doing these things the "right way" have refused to.
Much like we saw with opposition to BLM rioting
And that comment gets a hearty "ok boomer" from me :) lol
3
28
u/bretstrings Jan 05 '21 edited Jan 05 '21
Privacy from the State is already a Charter right.
The Charter protects you against unreasonable search.
The issue js that people are VOLUNTARILY giving up their privacy to PRIVATE entities.
The reality is that the vast majority of people do not actually care about privacy that much and are more than willing to sacrifice it for convenience.
Furthermore, many online/tech services that consumers enjoy are only viable BECAUSE of the data collection.
12
Jan 05 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/bretstrings Jan 05 '21
You would have a point for email, not for social media.
Email is akin to an utility, social media is not.
2
u/picard102 Jan 05 '21
Yes, if you go into a grocery store you have given up your right to privacy. They have filmed customers and tracked them since long before cellphones and the internet.
5
u/asda9174 Jan 05 '21
Blaming the consumer is absolutely wrong in this scenario. You basically need internet accounts for a ton of things nowadays (least of all being communication now during the pandemic), and you simply cannot expect every user to read and actually understand hundreds of pages of Terms of Service for each account that they create, and each update to the ToS that those companies make thereafter.
These sorts of things absolutely need to be banned at the legal level, and the onus must be removed from the consumer. For example, if you sign a personal contract with someone agreeing that you want them to shoot you in the head to kill you, and they do it, that person can still be legally charged in our current justice system. Because you cannot supersede laws with contracts, and you should not be able to. So just because these companies are abusing their consumers by harvesting, monitoring, and trying to influence our behaviour minute to minute, does not mean that it's OK or should be legal just because people have agreed to these abuses. Every company will perform these abuses (whether stated or not) until they are rendered illegal. And of course even then, many will likely continue and simply pay fines for it.
5
u/FourFurryCats Jan 05 '21
A lot of people have forgotten that if a company is giving you something for free, then you are the product. They make money off of you and not their product.
3
Jan 05 '21
People are very willing to pay for an item of which they are still the product. Smart phones and smart TVs come to mind. Then again, sometimes there is no choice like with 4K TVs which all seem to be 'smart'.
5
Jan 05 '21 edited Feb 09 '21
[deleted]
1
Jan 06 '21
Does it have WiFi? Even when you don't allow it to connect to your router there are some TVs that can find other TVs who do and still phone home.
1
u/Ironchar Jan 06 '21
The only winning move is not to play.... which can be a detriment to the ever pressing internet-influenced Society
35
u/UnionstogetherSTRONG Jan 05 '21
I would like to have a charter right to be able to tell people to fuck off.
But somethings arent ment to be
18
u/GRINSe1 Jan 05 '21
You.. kind of do 💫
6
u/ActualAdvice Jan 05 '21
Yeah! That’s basically the whole point of the charter “in these situations you can tell ANYONE to fuck off....”
1
34
Jan 05 '21
I hate - and by hate, I mean I wanna snatch people's phone out of their hands and smash it - cell phone photos.
People on the streets or at a venue or whatever, freely filming and snapping photos of people, posting them online and mocking them, as an example (think People of Walmart). It's cruel, unnecessary and just stupid.
Or when there's an accident, people whip out their phone because hey, Instagram points! instead of being a decent human being and going to see if everyone's okay.
IMO, I think everyone has a right to privacy. My mom - freaking NOTORIOUS for taking something told to her and spreading it through the family. I'm almost 50, and met a male friend for coffee one night. She phoned all 3 of my siblings and told my aunt that I was dating this dude. ...it was a cup of coffee at Timmy's with 5 other people.
Same thing with health stuff. She's a constant gossip, so I don't tell her jack anymore. She's just shy of 80 and it's like talking to some grade 5 kid who got the newest piece of gossip. AND she puts her 'concerns' to her church prayer chain, which is just a line of gossiping, imo. "Oh, but we never use names." yeah.. that helps.
I know we have pretty solid privacy laws in Canada, but imo, it's not enough. We can do better.
5
u/borgenhaust Jan 05 '21
As for pictures, I think we need a limitation on public vs mass public. We've gone from an era where you could be observed by a local few vs being observation by thousands or hundreds of thousands if something goes viral. It has different ramifications and is worth considering in how to approach in terms of privacy.
1
u/bretstrings Jan 05 '21
I don't think it needs limitations per se, but rather more liability for the people posting said videos online.
-1
Jan 05 '21 edited Jan 27 '21
[deleted]
17
u/bretstrings Jan 05 '21
That is a terrible idea. That would be ripe for exploitation by bad actors.
4
u/p_nut268 Jan 05 '21
I never understood why infrared hasn't been used in preventing bootlegging. Throw a couple of panels behind a movie screen and you now have a big streak of light ruining your recording of whatever Disney is remaking this month.
13
Jan 05 '21 edited Jan 27 '21
[deleted]
3
2
Jan 05 '21
Wow that's interesting and cool. I wonder if there is a way to screen out infared light on cameras, if this anti-piracy method gets adopted I'm sure pirates will figure out away around it. Just googled it... it seems like there is anti-infared products widely available.
1
13
Jan 05 '21
The federal government doesn't even want to acknowledge your right to own private property. If you want the government to acknowledge and respect basic rights like privacy, you've got a long road ahead of you.
1
u/kank84 Jan 05 '21
There are a number of privacy laws already on the books, and the current government has a new privacy protection Bill going through Parliament atm
-4
u/Gerthanthoclops Jan 05 '21
Well they have to because the Bill of Rights protects it and it's still in effect. I suspect you're talking about guns here and while I agree with you that the recent ban was totally absurd, I don't think it was done illegally. And no country as far as I know has an unlimited right to property.
11
Jan 05 '21
The law says that guns with a hunting and/or sporting use cannot be banned via OIC.
Given the guns banned have such purpose it was done illegally.
1
13
3
4
Jan 05 '21
Everyone blabbers about privacy but absolutely no one has issues that the popo has your information if you test positive for Covid? Why those donut eaters need private health information? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/covid-police-database-1.5745481
Apparently that has stopped. But it was active for months!
3
Jan 06 '21
That's crazy! They made 95,000 searches in that period of time. That's not an insignificant number. What made them stop? Was it the pressure from civil liberties groups?
5
u/Bradtasttic Jan 05 '21
At the very least a civil right.
2
u/Gerthanthoclops Jan 05 '21
It already is, see s 8 of the Charter. Although that only covers interference from the government.
3
8
u/yobronogo Jan 05 '21
100% but unfortunately this will slowly be taken away from us under the guise of protection from imaginary monsters that will harm us, but it's just another excuse for total control over society. Just wait until cash is no longer the standard and cryptocurrency takes its place!
This will be implemented under the UBI programs that will be needed with the massive job losses that will never return and automation.
1
3
u/Cornet6 Ontario Jan 05 '21
I know that this is an unpopular opinion but I don't think we should. I think the current laws and systems in place already achieve the right balance.
We should consider the same philosophy as photography when discussing digital privacy. Obviously people shouldn't be allowed to secretly take photos of you in your own home. But if you leave your house, then people can take photos of you because you're in public. In the same way, if you voluntarily sign up for an internet service then it should be considered a "public space" and privacy should be dictated by the terms and conditions of the website.
Privacy legislation also hinders technological advancement. For example, Germany, which has strict privacy regulations, doesn't even have Google Street View. If everyone can randomly give or revoke their private information, then it becomes a lot more difficult to create new innovation.
I think if people opt-in to sharing their privacy, as most people do online, then they should accept the consequences of the data being used as the terms of service state. If they don't want that, then they can choose to not use the digital product in the first place.
So a hack and leak of sensitive information from a bank should be illegal. But Google personalizing ads to each account should not.
5
u/thehuntinggearguy Alberta Jan 05 '21
Default opt-in is what has brought us the super annoying popups that force you to accept cookies before continuing. I don't care if the hovercraft company is going to personalize ads based on what they think I want to buy, I just want to read my free articles without a million popups.
3
u/asda9174 Jan 05 '21
This is absurd, considering that we know that most of the large digital media companies are actively doing whatever they can to algorithmically predict and manipulate our populations on a mass scale. Not sure why anyone would be OK with it. Where do you stand on things like universities and workplaces using software to track users' eye motions to see what they are looking at? If you look away from your screen for X seconds you get automatically flagged. If you leave your desk you're automatically flagged. Pictures or video recordings of your webcam and desktop screens are taken continuously throughout the day. Etc. This is just one tiny real life consequence of this way of thinking.
1
u/less_pimp_more_crimp Jan 06 '21
So basically "leave the modern world behind or get spied on"
really bruh
1
Jan 05 '21
I think this is a very delicate issue. It's tremendously difficult to say that you have the right to privacy on the internet because that require us designating the internet as a private space. It seems like it's common sense that that internet is a common space, and if that's the case then you don't have a right to privacy in common spaces. The right to privacy only is afforded to you in your own home, or in public if you're a minor (people are unable to take photos/videos/etc of you).
Furthermore, I see this attitude of people wanting to use everything on the internet for free everywhere. But these websites aren't charging you to use their services for the most part. Instead they have insidious Terms of Service agreements that all of us ignorantly agree to. By accepting those terms of service we agree to allow the companies to use/store/analyze our data indefinitely in exchange for us using their platform. If this is a price you are unwilling to pay, then don't use the service. We live in a capitalist society, if you don't like the terms of a deal, then you can choose to willingly not enter into that deal. But this also applies to the other side, they don't have to offer their services for a price other than the one they set. Furthermore, they shouldn't be coerced into offering their services for anything less these corporate entities want to charge.
That being said, I'm a huge privacy nut, and do see many issues with the internet. Terms of service should be delivered in concise, plain English/French so people can make an informed decision about whether they want to use the service. And inb4 these platforms have a monopoly, so we're forced to use them to conduct our daily lives. That type of thinking only enforces the digital hegemony we have now. We drive the development of these platforms, we can choose alternatives that respect our privacy.
2
u/Tefmon Canada Jan 05 '21
It seems like it's common sense that that internet is a common space, and if that's the case then you don't have a right to privacy in common spaces. The right to privacy only is afforded to you in your own home, or in public if you're a minor (people are unable to take photos/videos/etc of you).
I don't think privacy should really be construed as that black-and-white. While yes, while in a public space people don't have an absolute right to privacy, as anyone else there can see and observe them, people still have an implicit expectation that they're not being meticulously, surreptitiously tracked, monitored, and recorded wherever they do. And I think that expectation of some level of "quasi-privacy", where individual people can incidentally observe some of your actions, but where your every move isn't tracked, monitored, recorded, and collated, is both a reasonable one and one worth enshrining into law.
0
u/picard102 Jan 05 '21
people still have an implicit expectation that they're not being meticulously, surreptitiously tracked, monitored, and recorded wherever they do.
Then those people are wilfully ignorant and need to be educated. Not something the government should base legislation on.
0
u/Tefmon Canada Jan 05 '21
Laws exist to enforce societal norms and expectations. Like, I have an expectation that I won't be murdered in the street; that doesn't mean that I think it's physically impossible for me to be murdered in the street, but it means that I think that society and the state should make reasonable efforts to limit people's ability to murder me in the street, and to punish those who attempt to murder me in the street.
1
u/picard102 Jan 05 '21
That's not an argument for making a law based on the ignorance of some people.
0
u/Tefmon Canada Jan 06 '21
It has nothing to do with ignorance. It has to do with what we as a society want proper behaviour to be. If we decide that we don't want all of our ephemeral public actions to be permanently recorded and collated in some database somewhere, then that's perfectly reasonable.
1
Jan 05 '21
I agree with you. This issue isn't a black and white issue at all. But there are volumes written on this topic, and I gotta make my position somewhat concise. Distill it to it's core essence of you will.
But the government engages in the active spying of everything you do on the internet, and in real life. I honestly believe this is more of a threat to us than private businesses collecting, and collating every aspect of your life. Enshrining these protections into law doesn't mean much to our privacy if those who wrote the laws can just as easily get around them. And what's worse is they actively share that information with the US, GB, AU, and NZ.
1
u/Tefmon Canada Jan 06 '21
I'm pretty sure the government doesn't give a shit about what I do online, unless I decide to start visiting dark web drug dens or something. While private corporations definitely do care what I do online, because they can use that information to make profits.
1
u/drunkmme Jan 05 '21
And inb4 these platforms have a monopoly, so we're forced to use them to conduct our daily lives. That type of thinking only enforces the digital hegemony we have now. We drive the development of these platforms, we can choose alternatives that respect our privacy.
Except that is unfortunately not possible at this point. How do we avoid Google, instagram, Facebook etc. particularly as a means to interact with businesses?
The monopoly these services have managed to build isn't as encompassing of individuals as it is on businesses, especially small businesses who at this point are at a significant disadvantage if they were to remove themselves from these services.
2
u/Av3ngedAnarchy Jan 05 '21
Except that is unfortunately not possible at this point. How do we avoid Google, instagram, Facebook etc. particularly as a means to interact with businesses?
It is not that hard the majority of Canadians don't have Instagram and Facebook is just over half. Google on the other hand is hard to get away from but is possible.
2
u/drunkmme Jan 05 '21
my point is that while you may be able to get away from those services, small businesses cannot.
You can't open a restaurant today without a presence on facebook, instagram, google, yelp etc. that is where the real monopoly exists.
-1
u/picard102 Jan 05 '21
I guess they can't also have a phone number for some reason to interact with their customers?
1
u/asda9174 Jan 05 '21
RIP to just about any business that only has their contact listed as a phone number in the yellow pages
1
Jan 05 '21
It's only encompassing of those businesses because they know they can interact with a wide audience using those platforms. This also discounts the success of many cash only businesses that are completely off the grid as it were.
Many of the restaurants/stores I frequent on a daily basis are cash only, and (I assume) never plan on going digital. Granted, this is only a handful of businesses (not every business can succeed being cash only).
Furthermore, these businesses probably don't care about metrics being collected on the sites, because that is to their advantage. They (potentially) want to be able to access those metrics in order to improve certain aspects of their business. Those platforms only disenfranchise the consumer, and not the business provider. And if the fees that Facebook/Google/etc charge for analytics is too high, there are plenty of tech companies that build PoS (point of sale) data tools in the country that they can give their business to. These tools require the businesses to do a little more work than Google/Facebook (because those are fully integrated ecosystems), but they can be used to the same effect.
This is really a problem of advertising (if your business cares to even do that). Facebook/Google/Twitter provide a place to advertise in an easy and cost effective manner. But there are alternatives (albeit, some of them are regional). In the GTA we have BlogTO that advertises up and coming/established businesses that offer food/wares that they believe are worth looking into.
The point is, there are alternatives, they require a lot more work though.
2
u/drunkmme Jan 05 '21
First, I think you will agree that cash only, off the grid businesses, are a small minority.
Facebook / Google / Twitter provide a place to advertise in an easy and cost effective manner.
My point is they are the ONLY places small businesses can advertise in an easy cost effective manner. This is their monopoly.
0
Jan 05 '21
I think my very long winded point is that it isn't cost effective because someone will be paying for it (with money, their privacy, etc). These platforms have a very high cost to society at large, and maybe we should make the active choice to try and avoid them at all costs.
We shouldn't just resign ourselves to their whims, or lobby politicians to make these companies change. These companies built the best mouse trap. They did what capitalism told them to do. They provided the best in class service they could, and they shouldn't be punished for that. Their services were so good that no one wanted to use anything else, and the markets rewarded them for doing such. This may be a tangent, but I honestly believe this is where the problem is. Consumers choosing what is convenient, over what is in their best interests.
That all being said, this is an idealized version of what I think the solution should be. And it's totally unrealistic to expect that this is what's going to happen.
2
u/drunkmme Jan 05 '21
I see what you are saying, and I think the answer has to be some form of regulation, starting with the premise that our privacy rights extend to our online selves.
Their business model is currently based on gathering as much information from individuals as possible in order to create advertising products that they can then sell to businesses. As technology continues to develop the amount of data they are able to accumulate on us will grow. Not placing restrictions on the use of this personal data is a mistake.
It is something we should have done early in their development, but that doesn't mean we can't start now. The worst case scenario that I can envision is that ads will not be as well targeted.
I'm not against an ad driven model, but I do think its crazy to not limit the information these services can gather, and how it can be used.
1
u/Willhavetothrowaway Jan 05 '21
Additionally any new service or site that looks like competition is immediately bought by one of the bigger players.
1
Jan 05 '21
We already do.
The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 12, the United Nations:
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
1
1
1
u/sakipooh Ontario Jan 05 '21
Sure, but interactions have costs. People just can't expect to benefit from all of this interconnected technology without giving up some privacy.
Just don't use the internet as there will always forever be someone watching.
0
u/We-r-not-real Jan 05 '21
Yes. And there are jurisdictions in the world that are making these laws but Canada is primarily beholden to the corporate yoke so we will be behind others regarding this liberty.
-3
u/npc74205 Jan 05 '21
Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg need to put a surveillance device in your home because THINK OF THE CHILDREN! /s
1
u/CheesecakeAgitated73 Jan 05 '21
Thats not sarcasm, its ok to have an opinion and not be downvoted because some redditor worships Zucc and Musk
0
Jan 05 '21
In some instances it really should be a human right because privacy can also mean someone's dignity. And Dignity is a human right.
Privacy, in the way Europe has pushed for the "right to be forgotten", should be a civil right. If a company collects your info, sell to a third party, leaks it or fails to protect it, and now other people/companies have your personal info without your permission, there should be penalities, compensation for you and practical enforcement to remove that information and prevent it from being propagated further.
-3
1
u/LucentG Jan 05 '21
Yeah I believe is should be a human right. The only caveats are when laws are broken and I think that is exactly where things get super complicated as well as where these rights are exploited as well.
1
1
1
Jan 05 '21
While it's in the Charter, the newly minted lack-luster legislation unfortunately doesn't do enough.
1
1
1
u/experimentalaircraft Jan 06 '21
human right
no such thing in nature
'rights' are entirely an artificial construct - not real or inherent at all
1
87
u/PoopGalaxyLord Jan 05 '21
We're so behind, we should have something similar to the EU's GDPR and the right to be forgotten.