1 files changed, 3 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/content/entry/dont-record-others-without-permission.md b/content/entry/dont-record-others-without-permission.md
index 4934729..e4bc6f8 100644
--- a/content/entry/dont-record-others-without-permission.md
+++ b/content/entry/dont-record-others-without-permission.md
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ We've lost the right to personal privacy to a large extent thanks to the ever-ex
 # How it used to be
 This is very recent history so many of you reading this will have similar experiences. When I was in early primary school most people had dumb phones. They didn't have mobile phones with a built-in camera. From early primary school to middle and high school (in the United States) I watched smartphones with cameras become increasingly common and eventually got one myself. Not only were there more cameras, but their audio and video quality improved dramatically. It wasn't vague blurry media any more. Rewatching a recording was as if you were there yourself.
 
-People don't consider how big of a deal this is. Before camera phones, if there was a fight or some other incident in a school cafeteria, only that lunch group saw it. Actually only the few students crowded closely around even got a good look at it until school staff broke it up. That lunch group would tell their friends about it who told their friends and so on. Details of the fight would get added on, ommitted and changed as the gossip spread. Only the few students that watched it were sure of what happened. The rest was hearsay. There was no video recording. It didn't end up on social media. The students were disciplined and that was the end of that. That degree of privacy has been lost.
+People don't consider how big of a deal this is. Before camera phones, if there was a fight or some other incident in a school cafeteria, only that lunch group saw it. Actually only the few students crowded closely around even got a good look at it until school staff broke it up. That lunch group would tell their friends about it who told their friends and so on. Details of the fight would get added on, omitted and changed as the gossip spread. Only the few students that watched it were sure of what happened. The rest was hearsay. There was no video recording. It didn't end up on social media. The students were disciplined and that was the end of that. That degree of privacy has been lost.
 
 # How it is now
 If the same incident happened today, consider how it might be different. Now there's a fair chance a student might have pulled out their high-resolution smartphone camera, recorded the incident and shared it until it ended up on social media where the corporate surveillance state would pick it up. There would be a perfect digital copy of what transpired that day, shared with the whole world. It might hurt future employment prospects of either student. It could follow either student across schools should they attend a different school. School administrators could try to get students to take the video down, but they could never be certain all the copies were deleted.
@@ -24,11 +24,11 @@ I don't have a perfect solution for what to do about this, but it's clearly less
 # Social Norm 1
 It would be extremely dangerous for the government to strictly regulate what citizens are allowed to record. Perhaps a better way to mitigate the privacy problem caused by everyone having mobile smartphones with cameras on their person is to make it a strict social taboo to record others without their permission. To record another person having a bad day or distressed or shouting things they don't mean out of pure frustration and send it to others or upload it online for internet points is perverse, even if said person is in the wrong. People change. People improve. But that footage won't reflect that and it lasts forever. How would you like for the rest of your life to be about the worst thing you ever said or did? Would that be just?
 
-Of course there would be many exceptional circumstances. Video recordings are sometimes important. Police officers and public officials should be subject to recording just as covert investigations may require recording others without their knowledge or consent. What should happen to the recording after an investigation concludes for example is equally deserving of its own discussion and has been discussed by groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation[1] in the context of police bodycams[2]. Then there are cases where recording others is important, but there are steps that should be taken before the footage is shared with anyone. Media coverage of protests is vital, but video footage can be used to identify the protestors. At a minimum, faces and identifiable markings should be blurred out to protect protestor identities.
+Of course there would be many exceptional circumstances. Video recordings are sometimes important. Police officers and public officials should be subject to recording just as covert investigations may require recording others without their knowledge or consent. What should happen to the recording after an investigation concludes for example is equally deserving of its own discussion and has been discussed by groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation[1] in the context of police body cams[2]. Then there are cases where recording others is important, but there are steps that should be taken before the footage is shared with anyone. Media coverage of protests is vital, but video footage can be used to identify the protesters. At a minimum, faces and identifiable markings should be blurred out to protect protester identities.
 
 So that's one side of the equation. Society needs a taboo against recording people without permission except under extenuating circumstances. The norm should be not to record people without permission, where permission means informed consent. If you lie about the reasons you want to record someone or what you plan to do with the recording, you've obtained bastardized consent, not real informed consent. There can't be informed consent if the other party isn't informed.
 
-One last note about consent to record someone is that it's very tricky if you're in a position of power over the other person. In some circumstances it may not even be possible for the other person to be fully informed. Alzheimer's patients can't give ongoing informed consent because they forget why they're being recorded. Recording a person with Schizoaffective disorder or Dissassociative Identity Disorder is also highly suspect. In what sense is it consent if a person doesn't have an accurate model of the world? Is it really consent if the person being recorded isn't the same person that gave consent? These are tough questions and there are no easy answers.
+One last note about consent to record someone is that it's very tricky if you're in a position of power over the other person. In some circumstances it may not even be possible for the other person to be fully informed. Alzheimer's patients can't give ongoing informed consent because they forget why they're being recorded. Recording a person with Schizoaffective disorder or Dissociative Identity Disorder is also highly suspect. In what sense is it consent if a person doesn't have an accurate model of the world? Is it really consent if the person being recorded isn't the same person that gave consent? These are tough questions and there are no easy answers.
 
 Mental illnesses aren't the only reason informed consent can be impossible. It might be impossible if there's a large knowledge gap between the person recording and the person being recorded. Take Facecrook for instance. The average person has absolutely no idea how powerful Facecrook's A.I. systems (or their data brokers' A.I. systems) can get. It was used to manipulate an entire election it's so powerful, but the average Facecrook user has no clue how that could even be accomplished and can't even hope to understand those systems. Is that really informed consent? Some people have argued it was okay for Facecrook to manipulate the U.S. election in 2016, morally speaking, because the users clicked "I agree" years ago when they made their account. That's so absurd. 99% of Facecrook users couldn't have possibly known what Cambridge Analytica did was possible or the implications of it. It's especially not informed consent if you know the person whose data you're collecting can't understand the full implications of how it's used.