Privacy and Urban Exploration

The extraordinarily long-winded “clairelight” has produced a treatise on urban exploration, and privacy, and privilege, and race, and gender, and appearance, and so much more, besides. It’s worth a read, if you have some time to kill.

Though I agree with some (indeed, many) of the arguments presented, I was much annoyed by many parts of the article; hopefully, others may enjoy it more.

Let’s get the big one out of the way, first. No Disclaimer was written by Jeff Chapman, AKA “Ninjalicious”, as it clearly states right on the page. Unfortunately, Jeff is no longer with us, but I’m sure were he still alive, he’d be irritated by being referred to as “Infiltrator”, and not “Jeff” or “Ninjalicious” or, indeed, “Ninj”. (Clairelight, you will doubtless be saddened to hear that Jeff did not die of anything in any way related to urban exploration or infiltration, or in any fashion that might be worthy of a “Darwin Award”.)

I’m not going to touch the race issue, save to say that while her assumptions about the makeup of the urban exploration community almost bear a semblance to reality, it’s not for the reasons she assumes, but for sociopolitical factors that have nothing to do with privilege, or class, or skin color - or urban exploration or infiltration.

She also takes exception to the idea of “flouting authority” that she believes urban explorers embrace. It’s an entirely inappropriate choice of words. As far as authority goes, my experience has been that the philosophy is not one of “the heck with the man”, but the quite prosaic “it’s easier to get forgiveness than permission”. There’s a breen of explorer who operates entirely with permission, though frequently using social engineering to get what they want. This leads in a roundabout way to a (sort of) justification for some varieties of infiltration - if the building owners would let you on the rooftop because you bullshitted about working for the newspaper and wanting an unusual picture of the neighborhood for an article on something-or-other, then where’s the harm in sneaking up there when they’re not looking? If you are one of those who harbor some illusions about newspapers being instruments of righteousness and tools for the “public good”, feel free to substitute something entirely selfish, like a telecommunications firm looking for a new antenna site.

Another point worth mentioning is that urban explorers are not, generally, the craven, self-centered hedonists Clairelight would like to imagine, “flaunting” authority and breaking laws simply because they exist. This misapprehension is unfortunate, because it colors a lot of her highly-excitable drivel. Yes, Clairelight, there are dozens and dozens of good reasons why people shouldn’t go just anywhere in a hospital, and I think you enumerated them all, at length, and then some. But I really don’t believe that urban explorers are sneaking into “clean rooms” just to say they’ve been in one, (nor do I think they could, without detection) or doing anything similarly stupid. Rooftops and basements, Clairelight, rooftops and basements. Those are the most common destinations.

Instead of “screw authority”, the urban explorer mindset is probably a lot closer to the trite anarchist slogan “question authority”. Some rules are fundamental to the orderly functioning of society. Others are there to protect us from ourselves. Why shouldn’t you wander thru steam tunnels, taking a few pictures and touching nothing? Why, because they’re potentially dangerous, of course - to you. Why shouldn’t you watch the sunset from the roof of an abandoned building? Ultimately, because it’s not safe - for you. Clairelight seems to somewhat understand this, in her flippant acceptance - and dismissal - of those who explore abandoned structures.

There are perfectly valid laws about property damage, and theft, and breaking-and-entering, and all those other fun things. In a lot of, but not all circumstances, prohibitions against simple trespassing exist either for safety reasons - the violation of which should be viewed in the spirit of “informed consent” - or for privacy reasons; it’s the latter Clairelight has chosen to fixate upon.

Indeed, much of the post is hyperbolic outrage after hyperbolic outrage at the perceived invasions of privacy committed by urban explorers - actually, just people who explore “live” sites. Dozens of reasons of varying validity are offered for why such infiltration is a stupid idea, and I’m not going to nitpick them individually; I could spend hours doing so, but what’s the point?

The government recognized innumerable degrees and types of “privacy”, and urban exploration takes a somewhat similar view. Most people expect, and have, far more privacy in their apartments than in the hallways of their apartment building, or the laundry room. Likewise, the toilets at an office are more private than the building lobby, or the loading dock, or the cafeteria. An examination room at a hospital is more private than a waiting area. The sidewalk in front of my house is less private than the backyard. A hotel room is more private than the gym, or pool, or staircase, or lobby.

Sneaking into an occupied apartment is an incredible violation of the tenant’s privacy, and there’s a term for people who do that: “burglars”. Sneaking onto the roof of an apartment building, or into the boiler room, is far, far less invasive, and there’s a term for people who do that: “infiltrators”. Sneaking into a patient’s room in a hospital and photographing them while they’re recovering from surgery would, again, be an incredible violation of their privacy. Sneaking down a hallway marked “employees only” and photographing the hampers of dirty scrubs, not so much so. Get the idea?

Had you read much of anything about urban exploration and infiltration, Clairelight, you would have realized that urban explorers trespass, yes, but pretty much never trespass against individuals. Your ridiculous, hypothetical, and somewhat creepy postulations are far more in character with, oh, I don’t know, stalkers, than urban explorers. Trying to liken a curiosity for what’s behind a door marked “authorized personnel only” to ’something about your body or appearance that fascinated an urban explorer, something about your shirt or the way you did your hair’ is just asinine. Seriously. Don’t get me wrong, you have a gift; but like any gift, the amazing ability to misinterpret just about anything as a metaphor for unwanted sexual advances is best used with care and wisdom. Go use your abilities on the U.S. jingo in Iraq, why don’t you? Make some crude innuendos about this glassy-eyed, mouth-breathing country’s fascination with Iraq’s h-u-g-e… oil reserves. Or something. Okay? Thanks.

While you’re quickly and liberally handing out giant double handfuls of blame, you might want to turn a jaundiced eye towards property owners the world over. I’m certainly not suggesting anyone play blame the victim; far from it. But consider that urban explorers and infiltrators, by definition, do not “break in”. Every active location I’ve explored (and many of the abandoned ones), I’ve gotten in thru an already open door, broken window, broken fence, manhole cover, or similarly easy, unsecured means of entry. When the only thing providing privacy is an unlocked door, it’s not privacy, Clairelight, it’s the illusion of privacy. No intelligent property owner is going to exclaim in surprise at the idea that someone could sneak thru a hole in their fence and get in thru an unlocked door. Nor are any but the most unstable going to cite the potential for such unwanted access, in lieu of any evidence of such, as cause for neurosis. I assure you, most people at most businesses with few or no access controls are quite aware of just how easy it is for strangers to come walking by.

When you return from work, and all three locks on your apartment door are still locked, just as they were when you left, and the windows are still locked, just as they were when you left, your “privacy” is pretty well assured. Not so for the building janitor, who may show up in the boiler room at ten in the morning, to find it unlocked - just like he left it. Or the construction foreman, who returns to the partially-completed office building whose only protection against ingress is an empty barrel that needs to be rolled out of the way. “Security thru obscurity” is not security, Clairelight, and the illusion of privacy is just that.

Bookmark to: