surveillance implies active, constant, and surreptitious… i would not classify mutual location sharing as any of that: it’s passive, occasional, and well-known and consented to by both parties
NO surveillance is truly constant, that would defeat the point of surveillance which is to create the ever present possibility that someone is watching so you begin to subconciously assume you are always being watched.
Seems like the underlying tension is wether being surveiled at all is inherently a violation.
If it is, then your partner doing it might feel like a lack of trust.
If not, then it’s just a practical tool, might as well use the data if it’s getting captured anyway.
surveillance implies active, constant, and surreptitious… i would not classify mutual location sharing as any of that: it’s passive, occasional, and well-known and consented to by both parties
NO surveillance is truly constant, that would defeat the point of surveillance which is to create the ever present possibility that someone is watching so you begin to subconciously assume you are always being watched.
If you’re doing this through Google or whichever company is facilitating, then I would say that’s the party doing all of the things listed.
But yes, I presented it in the context of just the two parties, so your point is still valid