Expectation vectors
In the digital copyright/broadcast flag/analog hole world, there's a lot of talk about “consumer expectations.” Hollywood suggests that no consumer expects to have a “digital open living room,” with open-platform devices that can morph and upload and copy whatever content they get. They fight hard to make sure that consumer expectations are frozen in time — somewhere around the time of the Sony Betamax case. Expectations are dampened, intentionally, and then the scope of “fair use” is tied to their limitations:
“You can't possibly expect that X or Y use is fair, because you've never been able to do X or Y amazing digital feat. All our content works only on our licensed devices (with no analog outputs). You're happy, aren't you?”
In the digital privacy/4th Amendment world, there's a lot of talk about “reasonable expectations of privacy.” Law enforcement would likely suggest that no consumer who's been paying attention would possibly expect that their online communications were private. In a world of digital/magical surveillance of all kinds, the idea is that no one can claim that they thought they had a right to be left alone. Expectations are dampened, and then the scope of “privacy” is tied to their limitations:
“You can't possibly expect that X or Y electronic thing you just did was private, because you've seen the news stories and the ads — we can see everything! You're safe, aren't you?”
This is overstatement, but it's alarming how useful “expectations” are in both of these contexts, and how easily squelched they can be.
Comments
4 Responses to “Expectation vectors”
Got something to say?
I'm pretty sure the “consumer expectations” language got started in the anti-copyright camp, not the pro-copyright camp. As in, “Consumers expect to be able to make and distribute an infinite number of copies, so it's wrong of you to try and prevent that.”
I'd say its a safe bet that most (if not all) consumers don't understand the five layers of copyright protections (if that's the current accurate count), and don't 'pay attention' enough to have expectations that are at all inline with what DHS/RIAA/MPAA thinks they should be in either the areas of copyrights or privacy. The only reasonable thing these groups can bet on is that 99.9% of consumers are 99.9% likely to not see eye-to-eye with them.
Susan >In a world of digital/magical surveillance of all kinds, the idea is that no one can claim that they thought they had a right to be left alone.
In one of the many papers that I’ve not had the time to get round to writing yet (or maybe that’s because they are more wonderful in the planning stage) I’ve started to sketch out some arguments around expectations of privacy. At lest in respect to virtual worlds. Thing is that users do expect things to be private. You can tell this either by asking them or by seeing what they do online, the kinds of practices and the way that those practices are conducted displays and expectation of privacy.
On of the roots of the legal thinking about privacy takes into account people need for spaces in which to have intimate relations, as these are essential to human flourishing.
So to me the arguments don’t really cut it. It seems that people do expect privacy, act as if they get it and have a number of sound arguments to support the notion that it is a right in many circumstances.
I must actually complete that paper on day.
Ren — you MUST write that paper.
My students seem to think that every avatar is potentially an FBI agent.
Susan