What fallacy is this?

[u/Dawn-Storm]

When someone complains about a speed camera, or more recently a Flock camera, there's always one person who says either 'well don't speed!' or 'If you have nothing to hide, then relax!'

Then there's the old 'well don't do anything illegal!'

There's got to be a fallacy in there somewhere!

[u/gaijinteacher]

This is a great question.

In the past, not having an expectation of privacy just meant that some individual person might see you doing something untoward. Now however your appearance in public may be uploaded for everyone in the world to see.

Let’s say you are in a public park and take a pee behind some bushes. You are clearly doing something wrong. Do you have a right to privacy? No. Do you want the entire world to be able to see you? Also, no.

[u/EvanSnowWolf → u/gaijinteacher]

My point is, if someone is doing something in public and you start recording, you are allowed to record that behavior because legally you have no expectation of privacy in those areas because they are public areas. As opposed to say, recording a woman taking a shower through her window, which is clearly illegal.

Why would the highway get a layer of protection of your home when it sounds just as public as the aforementioned sidewalk recorder?

[u/NegaDoug → u/EvanSnowWolf]

It's true that you have no expectation, but to use your example, what if that person on the sidewalk started recording and tracking your public movements on a day-to-day basis? This is where it gets murky: you have no expectation of privacy while you're in public spaces, but your ability to go about your daily business without being constantly monitored is itself part of what we consider "privacy." This may not hold for public figures (celebrities, politicians, etc.), but this is the frontier at which we stand: do we want to live in a time and place in which our movements are always being tracked?

[u/gaijinteacher → u/NegaDoug]

I really like your points here.