Privacy in public
Privacy in public is the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment - security from unreasonable searches and property seizure by the government. It aims to protect small-scale intimacy and privacy for people in a larger context of a digital society. Privacy is becoming an increasing concern due to technological developments that can capture an individual's profile with higher levels or accuracy through high quality surveillance footage. Some other examples of environments in a digital society in which the interpretation of privacy in public can be applied in this context are social media, smartphone usage, and facial recognition technology. Increased surveillance through examples like these raise concerns on whether the government and large corporations are always watching, even in the most private of places.
In David Shoemaker's 2009 paper, Self-exposure and Exposure of the Self: Informational Privacy and the Presentation of Identity, he explains the “puzzle” of privacy in public with reference to data mining. Data mining is the process by which existing data is analyzed in order to create new data which relies on preexisting personal data sets widely available in public. Data miners use a large set of data from various sources to make connections and draw conclusions. He states that data miners draw on bits of publicly available information, such as social media or public records. These data miners are seen as unethical by informational subjects who believe their privacy has been violated because their personal data has been taken out of context and packaged into data sets portraying their digital identity. 
One way that this form of public data comes to exist is through social media. Social media refers to the collection of social networking sites that engage people through user accounts via the internet. Some examples are Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. These accounts can be “private” or “public” as decided by the user. It is important to note that all information posted on these websites are voluntarily supplied and generated by the user. Most social media users fail to read the terms and conditions each site that they willingly sign off on when creating an account. These same agreements hold critical information as to how their posts and personal data can be used. While not every account is publicly accessible, as a result of these signed agreements, all information supplied to these sites is accessible in some way.
Social media use is an example of privacy in public. Facebook is a public domain where users voluntarily share their personal thoughts, stories or images through posts on their own or friends timelines. Accessing this public sphere in a private setting, such as using a phone or personal computer, deems social media a public domain available in privacy. Therefore, the information that is posted to Facebook is considered public data, thus making it a target for data mining. For example, data miners might be interested in how many Facebook users between the ages of 18 and 25 are “in a relationship.” Twitter is also a major social media platform which exemplifies the online aggregation of public data. Like Facebook, the data that is posted on the platform is subject to data mining and scraping. Especially in today's recent political climate, Twitter's use has increased tremendously and it has become an even larger target for data mining. The discussion of data mining, with respect to public data, is often masked by the crime-prevention veil of public surveillance.
Public surveillance is the idea that your privacy is ignored in public settings. A few examples of this are facial recognition at the Superbowl, fingerprint scanning at Disney World, and public collections of phone numbers and email addresses through retail store databases. . Public surveillance, however, is a (violation of) privacy in public. Private and personal details, such as eye color, fingerprints, telephone number, and address can all be accessed publicly, in a public setting such as Disney World or a football stadium. This is where technology can be utilized in an unethical manner.
Google Street View
Google Street View is one of the many technologies offered through Google Earth and Google Maps.  From web browsers or mobile devices, users can view 360 degree virtual representations of public settings. The algorithms used within Google Street View automatically blur faces and license plates. Google will also blur houses or other private pieces of land upon request.  In spite of Google's attempts to maintain the privacy of pedestrians and other private entities, there have been a number of unique cases that have emerged in the past several years involving the invasion of privacy for individuals who would otherwise prefer to remain anonymous or unbothered. 
Video Recording in Public
In the age where YouTube vloggers are some of the most famous societal influencers, there is a new frontier of privacy to be faced. When vloggers record themselves in public spaces, people in the background or surrounding area are often caught on camera. These bystanders are usually unaware that they've been caught on camera and therefore do not give consent to being filmed. Unlike production companies that film for movies or shows in public spaces, vloggers often fail to respect the public's privacy, and do not blur out the faces of those who happen to appear in the background. Ultimately, these personal vlogs that are posted to the public Internet violates a person's right to privacy in public.
Additional video recording in public takes place if you are at a privately owned place or store. Most drugs stores and gas stations have security cameras up. The knowledge that these security cameras are in use is not always made clear to the customer and for this reason, they should be careful as to what they do while they are being recorded - or watched. This can be seen to some as a violation of privacy, but due to security needs, these cameras are still allowed to be in place.
Surveillance and Privacy
The Fourth Amendment in the United States constitution protects citizens against unwanted searches and seizures of property from the government. It is a central component to criminal and privacy law, allowing citizens the right to security in personal boundaries within society. When the Fourth Amendment is applied to privacy in public, it is referring to the right to be respected and secure in unwanted intrusion. If a citizen in the United States does not wish to share his or her personal details and has not disclosed them publicly, then those pieces of information should be left private. Johnathan Shaw, in the Harvard Magazine, asserts that if the Declaration of Independence were "redrafted for an information society, [it] might well include 'security and privacy' in addition to the familiar 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' among its examples of 'unalienable rights'." 
Some personal information surrounding an individual typically becomes public information once they leave their private residence and enter the public domain. The notion of a break down of information privacy barriers is what Floridi describes in the sixth chapter of the Cambridge handbook to information ethics as a lack of informational friction. What car one drives, what clothes and brands someone wears, their marital status, spoken language, and physical appearance can lend a great deal of information to who you are as a person. Income can be estimated, individual location can be ascertained, and physical identity can be described based on watching an individual walk from their house to their car. Though this might not be an accurate reading, it is a breach of privacy that most humans forgo by existing outside of their personal dwellings. Is being recorded a breach of privacy one overlooks or simply dismissed in order to watch a sporting event live? As Shoemaker says, “it is no wonder that most of us have reason to object to the sort of profiling produced by data mining. That a stranger may come to know our flaws is mortifying.” He continues, “when it comes to the exposure of ourselves, most of us prefer that our selves be the ones doing the exposing.”  It is a matter of autonomy and control at the root of the numerous violations of privacy in public. We prefer to self-construct our own identities, which can be achieved with absolute control over our personal information.
With the rise of Surveillance Technologies in the public space, there are large amounts of uncertainty on who is observing an individual’s actions. This impacts a person’s sense of freedom and discretion. Regardless if a person knows they are being surveilled or not, surveillance affects a person’s experience, behaviors and abilities in a space.  For example, video cameras implemented in public areas for security purposes are a common mode of surveillance. If an individual is aware that he/she is being watched or recorded, he/she is less likely behave inappropriately. However, this means innocent people are being constantly monitored and the information collected can be used in ways unknown to the individual. This ultimately affects privacy because this is consequential for a person’s sense of self ownership.  As forms of surveillance increase in public spaces, including online spaces, a person’s ability to protect their privacy is greatly limited.
Despite an infringement on personal privacy, surveillance is often a necessary measure within society as it exists today. There is an assortment of privacy benefits to go along with the negative ramifications as previously described. As a deterrent to criminal activity, it is a crucial application. Security cameras, online activity monitoring, and actions such as bookkeeping access to certain buildings and facilities are all examples of surveillance activities that, while may intrude upon personal privacy, are all useful measures in both preventing criminal activities, as well as catching criminal perpetrators after the fact. This, in a sense, can serve to increase an individual’s safety and security, as well as their sense of privacy. Without measures to counteract certain activities through the means of public surveillance, one’s own privacy may be violated in a far more severe way, through the likes of identity theft as well as more physical crimes against an individual.
Expungement "is a court-ordered process in which the legal record of an arrest or a criminal conviction is 'sealed,' or erased in the eyes of the law." In the age of social media and mass media, this concept has become a hot topic in the domain of public privacy. Laws on Expungement differ from state to state, with some former criminals able to apply for expungement five years after the offense. While the time frame for applicability seems reasonable, implementation and other concerns surrounding the practice are of concern. Expungement is granted to relatively few applicants each year, usually after the five year minimum to apply, and once it is granted, it can be difficult to fully remove the records from the internet due to the presence of data-brokers. Data-brokers scrape the internet for records on individuals, storing that data and often failing to update these records when changes are made. It is probable that an individual with a first-time, minor offense could be denied future employment opportunities due to criminal background searches conducted via outdated data-brokers. The concern surrounding future employment is one of the main ones, as there can be as much as a 20% increase in employ-ability post-expungement as compared to pre-expungement. The presence of any sort of criminal record is typically a deterrent for prospective employers and a burden for those seeking or receiving expungement. One of the easiest ways to access these records is through a simple Google search. In certain cases it should be, and sometimes is, possible to remove oneself from Google searches online (called delinking). As Luciano Floridi explains that it is possible to remove oneself from Google in several European nations but argues that the practice should occur solely within national boundaries, not across international borders. Floridi argues that those searching for an individual through Google are almost always searching from within the same nation, as is the case in the U.S. with employers seeking the criminal records of U.S. citizens (almost exclusively).
Self-censorship is the personal control over ones actions to avoid punishment, often the judgment or negative responses of others. Self-censorship becomes unethical when it deters internet users from gaining knowledge they would otherwise want if not for lack of privacy and constant surveillance. This gives some explanation as to why there has been a decrease in the amount that "terrorism-related keywords" are searched online. This is a proactive method of avoiding potential punishment by avoiding the act in itself. Self-censorship implicitly takes away people's freedoms of privacy without formally declaring that people should not search these things because they are being surveilled. Again, behavior is usually modified in public spaces where an individual understands he/she is being watched - through various methods.
- Slobogin, Christopher. “Public Privacy: Camera Surveillance of Public Places Andthe Right to Anonymity.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2003, doi:10.2139/ssrn.364600.
- "What Is Data Mining?" SAS. Accessed March 15, 2019. https://www.sas.com/en_us/insights/analytics/data-mining.html.
- Shoemaker, David W. "Self-exposure and Exposure of the Self: Informational Privacy and the Presentation of Identity." Ethics and Information Technology 12, no. 1 (2009): 3-15. doi:10.1007/s10676-009-9186-x.
- Stanford University Press Privacy In Context Hellen Nissenbaum 2009
- Shaw, Johnathan. "The Watchers Assaults on Privacy in America". Harvard Magazine. 2017.
- Woodward, John D., Super Bowl Surveillance: Facing Up to Biometrics. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2001. https://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP209.html.
- Mathews, Devante. "Walt Disney World Now Requires Biometric Finger Scan for Children!" Orlando Tickets, Hotels, Packages. August 30, 2016. https://www.orlando-florida.net/walt-disney-world-now-requires-biometric-finger-scan-children/
- “Discover Street View and Contribute Your Own Imagery to Google Maps.” Google, Google, www.google.com/streetview/.
- "Google admits it sniffed out people's data". TechEye. May 17, 2010.
- Floridi, Luciano. The 4th Revolution How the Infosphere Is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford University Press, 2014.
- Patton, J.W. Ethics and Information Technology-Protecting Privacy in Public? (2000) 2: 181. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010057606781
- Kelly, Heather. “After Boston: The Pros and Cons of Surveillance Cameras.” CNN, Cable News Network, 26 Apr. 2013, www.cnn.com/2013/04/26/tech/innovation/security-cameras-boston-bombings/index.html.
- Wayne, Logan Danielle. “THE DATA-BROKER THREAT: PROPOSING FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO PROTECT POST-EXPUNGEMENT PRIVACY.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 102, no. 1, 2012.
- Prescot, J.J., and Sonja B. Starr. “The Case for Expunging Criminal Records.” The New York Times, 20 Mar. 2019.