Privacy in the 24th century...

[Mojochi]

To me, the issue of re-creating someone in a holodeck is very different than an abstract conversation you might have in your head with a celebrity or someone you know. It's more along the lines of someone computer-generating someone's likeness and then making a series of videos using that likeness.

Isn't your objection mostly because the holodeck we're familiar with is a public utility though? I mean, if someone generates an image of someone else, but it is only ever seen by them, how is it any more inappropriate than writing an unflattering story about them, or having an unflattering conversation about them with only 1 other person? My overall point is that this is much less an issue of invasion of privacy as it is an issue of potential defamation.

My feeling is still that I would personally find it very unsettling to live in a world where people could create a computer generated likeness of me and then basically do whatever they wanted to or with that likeness. .

Well, I find it unsettling to think about people who might be talking about me behind my back. The damage that can be done via that can be just as detrimental as anything made into a hard copy of some kind. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that more people have killed themselves over that very form of defamation than have ever done so over a piece of illicit material being made about them. My guess is that more people's lives have been upset with words spoken about them than with some fabricated media, even still now, despite viral videos having become so much more prevalent

 

[Timo]

This is hardly a what if -scenario anyway: doing likenesses is pretty trivial technically, and not particularly different from doing them with paper and pencil, say.

It's difficult to see how legislation or sanction mechanisms could make any difference here. Or why they should. On a planet of ten billion people or so, give or take a few years, there's always going to be enough of those who are doing likenesses of you for lusting or hating purposes, or literally for shits and giggles. It's just that you being aware of them is a recent phenomenon. And the solution is rather different from the old one where the whole village politely but succinctly told the perceived offender to cease and desist or die, or the perceived victim to cease and desist or die. You simply have to realize that in this world of plenty, people and opinions are irrelevant by default, and that you only need to care about those you, well, care about.

As for the holodeck being a public utility, well, starship doors are seldom locked - but it is also seldom that the door would face a request to open from anybody but a superior authority. Stumbling onto a private holofantasy may well require CO, XO or CEO privileges - it's little different from said folks traipsing into your quarters, at which point you're simply supposed to put the magazine away, zip your pants and come to attention of another sort, no hard feelings etc. The civilian version of same might never involve sudden burstings-in.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[galleywest]

Er, huh. No, if never thought of the holodeck as a public utility. That's kind of an odd idea. I'd think of it more like a gym, if anything, which I don't think of as a public utility. And I think there's a real, fundamental difference between talking about someone and creating a free-standing, speaking, visual and tactile representation of a person.

I don't think the argument that "it's only for private use," really holds up. Again, drawing on my experience working in a public institution (and my husband's military experience), you don't have a lot of privacy for personal matters. Everything is subject to public request.

I'm just surprised, looking back, that this issue was never discussed!

 

[Mojochi]

A gym is without question a public utility, unless it's one for private use on your own property. You can't just go in there & use it butt naked if you wanted. They have rules of public use. Heck, you couldn't even walk in one for the last 8 months because of how public a utility they are.

The holodecks are a public device for use by the ship's personnel. Anyone is granted access to them. The ship's 2nd officer literally brings a newly defected Romulan officer in there & gives him free reign. There couldn't be a more public utility than that. @Timo is right in that it's probably not likely a person's use of it will be intruded on much, but it still is a general use amenity they offer

 

[Kor]

Well, gyms are really private property run by private companies or individuals, and subject to a membership contract. Even public community centers make you sign in before you can use their exercise equipment/facilities. And in either case, what you are allowed to do within the place is subject to their rules. Some have a "shirts-on" policy, while others have posing areas or posing sessions where you are expected to take your shirt off so you can refine your routine for the next Mr. Universe contest.

And for the past several months, there have been plenty of private gyms that continued operating "on the down low" behind windows completely covered with wooden boards or large sheets of butcher paper so they wouldn't catch the eye of the public.

As for the holodeck, it's been established that you can reserve one for a timeslot for your own exclusive use. Even if the computer wasn't allowed to create an exact likeness of a particular person on command, somebody with enough time and creativity could probably come up with a good likeness themselves by starting with a generic template and then making a million adjustments to the shape of the nose and eyes, etc.

Kor

 

[Timo]

...In which case it becomes a question of what the computer allows the user to do.

The computer is not stupid. In the general case, it's much smarter than the user, guessing his or her needs well before those manifest as commands or situations or whatnot. If the user attempts to create, say, a likeness of the ship's CO with horns and a barbed tail, the computer will see that coming, and may or may not agree with it. If it does not agree, only people with extra privileges may proceed.

So far, we have seen no suggestions that the computer would refuse any such request, though. It very seldom talks back in the holodeck context, and generally only to remind the user that there is a dramatic malfunction or other technical limitation affecting the operations. Nothing suggests that Barclay would have needed to hack the system in order to reproduce Troi or Riker, either.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mojochi]

So far, we have seen no suggestions that the computer would refuse any such request, though. It very seldom talks back in the holodeck context, and generally only to remind the user that there is a dramatic malfunction or other technical limitation affecting the operations. Nothing suggests that Barclay would have needed to hack the system in order to reproduce Troi or Riker, either

I think we've heard the computer clap back now & then, when the request is too vague too. Those are really the only times the computer seems to get in the way of a holodeck request, malfunction, technical limitation, or prompting for clarification.

You also make a good point. The fact is, because the holodeck is a piece of Starfleet property, & linked to the ship's computer, the very fact that they can still easily conjure recreations of crew members (Like in Troi's command exam) speaks to the propriety of the act in itself, as far as they are concerned. Heck, even Moriarty, a hologram himself, was able to reproduce the crew.

We really get hung up on the 1 time that the act of reproducing crew members was used questionably by someone, compared to the number of times it's used just as freely for productive reasons... Troi's command exam, Geordi's Identity Crisis away mission recreation, Riker's Matter of Perspective defense. Even Geordi's creation of Leah Brahms was done for rightful intentions, & without getting too much into the unwanted topic area, his wrongfulness involving it is at least debatable, (In some other thread lol) as we only ever saw the one program of her, which was for professional purposes, & the computer algorithm is as much to blame as the user, for it getting a bit unethically overpersonal with her likeness, in that one program... maybe more so.

The point being, It's a bit unfair to judge any of the people who've done whatever they did, like Barclay, if the computer itself can just as easily trip into a slightly unethical gray area with it. For a guy like Barclay, who has some established psych issues, his entire holodeck habit could've formed over time from a similar simple misunderstanding, stemming from that possibility itself, & grew into an addiction.

 

[galleywest]

A public utility is usually something like a road system, public transit, a sanitary system, or a library. While many people may use a gym at one time, it's almost always a privately owned business rather than a public utility. I don't think a holodeck quite fits that definition, but maybe I'm wrong and everyone has access to it like you would a park or a library.

I'm willing to buy the argument that the computer perhaps has certain parameters which it will not violate and that the recreations of real people seen on the show fall within those parameters. I get why it was done for storyline utility (it came in useful for so many episodes), but I still think it would pose some interesting consent issues in a real world context.

 

[Mojochi]

Well, we do see both people reserving time in the ship's holodecks, & also see people just wander in & use them. There really does seem to be general access... like a park with a playground

 

[at Quark's]

Well, we do see both people reserving time in the ship's holodecks, & also see people just wander in & use them. There really does seem to be general access... like a park with a playground

Yes, but with the option to deny access to others during your 'playtime'. We see several instances of security officers overriding such lockouts.

 

[JesterFace]

In particular, we watched Galaxy's Child (an episode I never really liked or paid attention to) and I can't help but wonder why the Holodeck even let anyone make a program replicating an actual person, especially a living one.

The little pervert in me made me wonder....
If someone creates a person on the holodeck who has used the transporter, is it allowed to use the transporter data to create an exact copy of someone? Someone with sexual fantasies in mind might not be happy until the holo character is an exact copy of the original person, right down to, lets say, nipples and genitals.
Also, sorry for this post.

 

[JaxsBrokenHeart]

Between the rise of of deepfakes, speech synthesis, and holograms of famous dead performers, the nature of the holodeck feels prescient even more quickly than the writers thought it would be.

While I think with public use holodecks you could certainly limit the nature of various programs, that could still lend itself to potential tampering by a crafty technician behind closed doors, especially given that entering without permission barring an emergency is illegal. And if its privately owned then trying to legislate its use would be even trickier.

A lot of this comes down to both the amount of accessible information about civilians within the Federation one can actually get and how much legal ownership people would really have over their likeness and image. If various computers within the Federation have detailed records of even non-officers, to the point where one could pull up a three dimensional active hologram of some Orion botanist half a quadrant away that looks and sounds similar to them?

Well at that point actual enforcement of proper holodeck usage might as well be relying on the honor system.