Todays Slaw post:
One thing I find consistent about privacy issues is an inconsistency in approach and viewpoint. What is and is not deemed acceptable seems to change dramatically based on several factors, including geographic location (which I suppose is really more of a cultural issue than a geographic one), whether it is about one’s own information or you are doing something with someone else’s information, and whether the party with the information is government or business.
Many times it comes down to issues of trust, understanding, surprise, and how public one wants their life to be.
An example is in this article entitled Eric Schmidt is using the same argument against drones that others use against Google Glass.
One of the most common concerns raised about Google Glass (other than looking like a nerd) is the potential for privacy invasion. The more of these there are around, the more likely each one of us is going to be captured on the video they can take whether we like it or not. And where is all this video going to end up? That issue has also been raised about drones. Google’s Eric Schmidt has apparently stated that drones should be strictly regulated for privacy reasons, which seems inconsistent with their approach to Google Glass.
Perhaps one explanation for this could be that privacy in the United States is viewed differently than in Canada and other parts of the world. In the US, privacy is not approached as a holistic discrete topic to be regulated by general principles. Instead, it is regulated on a piecemeal basis, such as a privacy law that applies only to movie rentals.