And if not, its existence is highly overdue.
Where tracking of privacy-sensitive activities of individuals in public, traditionally required exhaustible resources (as in agents physically shadowing targets); cameras and other sensors can (and will) track said activities of any individual in public, regardless of being targeted (not that targeting individuals is possible to begin with: only after collection, one can pinky swear not to look at, or discard information regarding non-targets).
The main difference being, one traditionally having effective “expectation of privacy” in public (unless specifically targeted by authorities: having sufficient reason to allocate resources to the individual), but in the context of modern technology we lost the benefit of the doubt. And unless never setting a foot outside again, any arguably more incriminating personal data (naked in the shower versus protesting an oppressive government) should be “expected” to be collected.
So because “privacy” is historically tainted with said demoralization, any efforts to defend “privacy” in “public” (where one can truly no longer have expectation thereof) are doomed to fail. Therefore I wish to have a term, without ambiguity introduced by any subjective matter (that is “expectancy”: the individual’s versus a typically biassed judge’s); one that makes no distinction between personal data being collected in private, or in public.
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.