Stepping aside from legality, and speaking purely from ethics, there's a big difference between "hiring someone to provide a service for your own private home" and "renting out a temporary place of residence for someone".
Ethically speaking I'd say it's completely okay to monitor the former, whether that service is a plumber or a babysitter, and whether the monitoring is done with a camera or your own human eyes. Those service personnel shouldn't be expecting privacy while they provide services, anyway.
Ethically speaking I'd say it's wrong and a violation of privacy to monitor the latter, regardless of whether it is done with camera or eyes, without prior warning. This is because providing a place of residence implies providing some level of privacy. Forget cameras, you shouldn't generally enter a tenant's place of residence even with your human eyes, without letting them know in advance (e.g. at the very least by knocking).
Yes. And I am in the position to demand it, or take another position. So we get a privacy divide within society: cleaners, waiters etc don't have an expectation of privacy, those higher up do.
> Do you expect privacy when you're in a shopping mall?
No, everybody can walk in and out at any time.
> You're in a building controlled by someone else, no renting going on. What is your rule for when privacy is expected?
Well, you have touched upon that yourself in your previous question: if a place is open to public you can not expect privacy obviously. When you are in a private place, the default should be to expect privacy unless explicity noticed otherwise.
I feel like you are actually advocating some 1984 here on freakin' HN!
You're a plumber in my house. I feel like I fully have the right to watch you as you repair my plumbing. You're a babysitter in my house. Babysitting my hypothetical baby. I feel like I would have the right to watch over that baby's treatment in someone else's hands. If you aren't going to let me watch over the quality of your services, I would just find someone else to provide those services.
At some point, once we have established a degree of trust, I would probably watch over you less and less. This is quality control, not a privacy violation.
I do agree that within a single organization, such as a software company, employees need to have some level of privacy from each other in order to work efficiently and happily. That is also facilitated by an environment of mutual trust established by the company itself. That's a very different situation from an individual contracting the services of another individual, who are not a priori related to each other.
I feel like this is a completely different area though. Would you ever rent services from someone saying: "I'll do the work in your house, but you can't look" ? I get the general idea of "I don't waive my right for privacy when I enter someone's house", but for work I just don't see any use case.
If I can't see what you're doing in my house, you're not working in my house. What's the reason I'd ever want/need the opposite?
It's awfully easy to forget how one's circles aren't representative of most people. I think the general public are a lot more worried about terrorism and whatnot than they are about surveillance. Bashing the surveillance services is not a vote-winner.
The CEO has it's own office. He can close the door. If he wants, there will be no surveillance.
He even has an employee hired to protect his privacy: his secretary, which sits in front of this door. 'No sorry, mister Buffet is not in right now'.
The cleaner, the factory worker etc has to work in public places an thus can ben surveilled 100% of the time?
> I'm not advocating anything
You are at least condoning surveillance of everything that is under YOUR control. 'My property', 'I am paying for this'. Expressing your opinion like this in this context can only be explained as advocacy.
>You are at least condoning surveillance of everything that is under YOUR control. 'My property', 'I am paying for this'.
Those are not words I said.
I just wanted to know how you drew the line.
Which has helped me understand you better. I think you define the word 'privacy' differently than I do. I am against surveillance in many areas where I do not expect 'privacy'. You also draw a similar distinction, where you're okay with someone physically watching a plumber but not setting up a camera.
> Even a CEO is commonly able to be monitored by HR.
What do you consider "being monitored" in this context? The CEO answers to the board. Would I be naive in assuming the CEO is so far above HR and IT that monitoring him wouldn't be within their jurisdiction without the board requesting something specifically behind the CEO's back?
I'd say that if you're renting to someone else, it's still your property so you should be free to monitor it, but not disclosing the presence of cameras or other monitoring devices should be illegal.
Ownership is a bundle of rights. In the U.S., if you have rented out a property you "own" to another person, you do not have the right to enter that property without prior notice or consent of that person.
The US is a fucked up place because they want to make sure a babysitter doesn't shake their baby to death or a housecleaner doesn't break or pocket something without admitting it? Hyperbole much?
I mean, if we extend your logic, we should monitor everyone at all times because someone might just accidentally do something to hurt your child right? You never know why an extremely rare event like you mentioned could happen.
Everyone is usually being monitored when around children of strangers; we just usually do so with human eyes instead of cameras. Babysitting is an exception, but why should it be?
That's... just not really true. Maybe in some parts of extreme helicopter parenting, but it's really not a global truth. If what you say is true in US then perhaps the upper poster wasn't so wrong about the state of the country :/.
The implication wasn't that parents are watching the kids at all times when they're with others, but that someone was. There are almost no situations in which kids are left alone with someone other than their parents, apart from babysitting.
Pretty what? All sentences are ambiguous if you try hard enough. If you could tell what the meaning was, why are you insulting a strawman while actively admitting it is a strawman?
A camera can find mistreatment before it turns critical, and then the sitter is replaced.
That is protecting the baby's health, which sometimes reaches the level of saving lives.
Your logic only works if camera footage goes unwatched until the day the babysitter exits the business.
Edit: And that 'thin line' remark is 100% a strawman. I don't know how you can admit it isn't the "intended meaning" and yet claim it's not a strawman.
The statement about the intended meaning is there in an attempt to avoid this conversation. I was not putting the argument in their mouth, I was being bombastic in my criticism of their phrasing. If I was raising it as a serious argument, you are right, I probably wouldn't try to undermine it 10 words later.
