|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Privacy in the Modern World
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
There is a sort-of pond difference here. Generally speaking, in North America (there's a Québec exception tangent, should anyone wish it) photography of anyone doing anything in public spaces is not illegal
U.S. laws, broadly, differentiate between places where a person has an "expectation of privacy" (inside one's home, for instance) and places where one does not. A simple example is that to search a home for incriminating documents generally requires a warrant, whereas searching through a trash bin behind the house does not.
There is no general law against taking photographs in this country, in public or in private. There are specific laws about some places (courts of law, royal palaces)
Nor is there any legal right to privacy in English law, though some judges seem to be trying to make one up out of bits and pieces of other laws, such as harrasment, stalking and so on.
Taking photos on private property breaks no laws as such, though the owners have a right to ask you to leave at any time, and therefore a right to make any conditions they like for you to stay. So they can say "no photography". But unless you happen to be in a nuclear power station an airfield or a military base or similar, their only legal remedy if you break their rules and take photos is to ask you to leave.
The US-inspired anti-terrorism laws of the last decade or so give the police wide powers to beat you to a pulp and apologise afterwards if you do anything they object to within sight of anything they can claim to be a target for terrorists. So if a police officer tells you to stop taking photos of something or someone its a very good idea to stop. But the photography as such breaks no law.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
And someone, somewhere, might well be making money out of your image. You won't get a penny from it, but for all you know it might be being used commercially somewhere,...
I think youy have legal recourse against that in the USA, but not in England. We're a lot more libertarian about such things than they are.
On the other hand, if someone is using your image without your permission to advertise a product in the UK they are probably breaking the Advertising Standards Authority code of practice.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
...possibly even to endorse a product you don't approve of.
That might be some kind of defamation, or damage to reputation. Possibky even libel. In which case the one with the most lawyers left standing at the end wins.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
[QUOTE]
Imagine you had been caught in an embarrassing situation in public. Would you feel differently about someone pointing you out and laughing with a friend about it compared with someone taking a picture that they could subsequently show at leisure to anyone they chose?
My sense of ethics (as opposed to law) doesn't really distinguish between things I see and things I photograph. It's all a question of what you do with the information. I'm viewing a photograph that I take here as basically a memory augmentation.
So if I come across RuthW or Ariel in a private, emotional moment, I am going to uphold her privacy, because I am (or at least I like to think I am) a decent human being. So this means that I won't be showing any pictures that I might have automatically recorded them to anybody else, but it also means that I'm not going to be describing her emotional state or actions to all and sundry either.
And I don't really see much difference between me showing pictures and me describing in detail what I saw. There is an additional risk attached to pictures in that, in today's digital age, a picture is even harder to control than a rumour.
If we consider the modern malaise of sexting, I claim that it is exactly as offensive to show off naked photos of a girl, share them with your friends etc. as it is to describe to your friends her naked body and/or the activities that you engaged in.
The photo is more likely to be spread than the description, so is more likely to cause more harm.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
...possibly even to endorse a product you don't approve of.
That might be some kind of defamation, or damage to reputation. Possibky even libel. In which case the one with the most lawyers left standing at the end wins.
This talk of product endorsement reminded me of this amusing story from the 2010 General Election campaign.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
From mousethief's linked article:
quote:
Competent and determined data hunters armed with the right tools can always find a way to get it. Less committed folks, however, experience great effort as a deterrent.
This position seems to be a bit outdated. Given the ease of purchasing ready-made malware, knowledge is less and less necessary.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
I said I objected to having my photograph taken and kept by a stranger without my permission.
Yes, but why? What are the reasons for said objection?
I don't believe anyone has to justify a personal preference like this.
That might depend on how much attention you want others to give to your attempt to impose your personal preferences on them. If you're seeking to persuade a person to surrender some part of their liberty, it's perfectly reasonable for them to consider it their personal preference not to do so in the absence of a good reason.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Therefore one is entitled to take photographs as one pleases in a public place (provided no other laws are broken in the process) and one is not entitled to privacy in public.
And if you take photos in public people have a perfect right to object.
In the same sense that a photographer in a public space has the perfect right to object to people seeking to impose restrictions on their liberty.
If you want to restrict the liberty of others, the place to do it is in the privacy of your own home.
[ 15. March 2013, 23:24: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I try, most of the time, to avoid having people in my shots. Or keeping them unrecognisable.
Interesting about people's reactions and actions, though. If I point a camera in a person's direction, they tend to be nervous. Especially if it is a large camera with a large lens. If I have the same camera on a tripod, few seem to have qualms about walking in front, even with my finger on the shutter release.
In response to the remark upthread to to privacy being a dying concern, it is a mixed bag. As the immediate dissemination of information becomes more the norm, the issue will end up in the courts (and other bodies) more and more. And those making the decisions do not necessarily have a firm grasp of the concepts or technology.
[ 15. March 2013, 23:54: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
From mousethief's linked article:
quote:
Competent and determined data hunters armed with the right tools can always find a way to get it. Less committed folks, however, experience great effort as a deterrent.
This position seems to be a bit outdated. Given the ease of purchasing ready-made malware, knowledge is less and less necessary.
Even then you have to know what malware to buy and whom to buy it from. In general, the harder it is to do something, the fewer people are going to do it; it will never be as easy to gather a lot of personal data as it is to do simple tasks like sending an email, and that keeps us all more obscure than we otherwise would be.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
True, but ISTM, we are less obscure than many think. One, do you have the same e-mail here as your bank(/Amazon/eBay/other retailer)? Do you use the same, or easy derivatives of the same, password? How many online retailers use the same credit processing portals?
As far as the ease of use of malware, Henry Ford and Ray Crock married Al Gore and had a baby. And she is hunting for your money.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
It's interesting that there was plenty of footage of the meteorite in Chelyabinsk due to the fashion for having dashboard cameras in Russia.
Here is an article
"Fitted in vehicles mainly for insurance purposes, the cameras store pictures on a hard drive in case of incident, and have provided a rich vein of material on social media and video-sharing websites."
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
On the Russia thing, I saw a prog a while back saying how popular CCT footage had become among the Russian general public . Particularly Police videos apprehending criminals, (of a violent nature), and road crashes.
I wondered if was a mass, involuntary de-tox thing after all those decades of communist rule ?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
On the Russia thing, I saw a prog a while back saying how popular CCT footage had become among the Russian general public . Particularly Police videos apprehending criminals, (of a violent nature), and road crashes.
I wondered if was a mass, involuntary de-tox thing after all those decades of communist rule ?
Could be - information in the hands of everyday folk.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's interesting that there was plenty of footage of the meteorite in Chelyabinsk due to the fashion for having dashboard cameras in Russia.
Here is an article
"Fitted in vehicles mainly for insurance purposes, the cameras store pictures on a hard drive in case of incident, and have provided a rich vein of material on social media and video-sharing websites."
I have a pair of cameras that I use facing forwards and backwards on my bike for incidents.
Thankfully, so far I've only really gotten two important uses out of them - one was as a deterrent to a road rager by pointing at the camera, the other was recording evidence of a transit revenue inspector* bullying a train passenger.
* we have signs inside our trains stating "images and sound may be recorded and used," just in case anybody was wondering about the legality of recording inside a public transport vehicle.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm left wondering where the line of etiquette is drawn though.
I’m not sure. Even less sure now that I look through your examples. Some I did think were clear-cut.
...
Certainly not all easy to call though.
I deliberately selected those particular shots to demonstrate the range of possibilities, from one person to a whole crowd and from unidentifiable to identifiable.
One photo I didn't include has had a high number of hits because the train driver's friends spotted it and linked it to his Facebook wall. That was a little weird, but none of them suggested I should take it down.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Imagine you had been caught in an embarrassing situation in public. Would you feel differently about someone pointing you out and laughing with a friend about it compared with someone taking a picture that they could subsequently show at leisure to anyone they chose?
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
My sense of ethics (as opposed to law) doesn't really distinguish between things I see and things I photograph.... The photo is more likely to be spread than the description, so is more likely to cause more harm.
Well if the photo is more likely to do harm don't you think the victim might be justified in considering the photo a worse infraction than the discussion?
[ 16. March 2013, 16:33: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Interestingly, if you want to sell pictures at one of the major photograph selling sites online (Big Stock, Can Stock, DreamSTime, etc.), you must have a signed release from the people in the photo.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
ISTM, that is not because it is illegal to take or use said images, but that an individual may object to said use and a court may determine in their favour. It is a case by case basis and those agencies are erring to the side of caution.
ETA: in the case of stock photography, often the purchases intent is to advertise or illustrate, with the direct intention of displaying the image to many people. So, this makes very good sense for the agencies to require a release.
[ 16. March 2013, 17:42: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, that is not because it is illegal to take or use said images, but that an individual may object to said use and a court may determine in their favour.
How can a court decide in their favor if there is no law against it? If there is no criminal or civil law prohibiting something, how can a court possibly forbid it?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
ISTM, the laws are based upon interpretation. In the US, this varies greatly by both state and judge. Comes down to the interpretation of reasonable right of privacy.
Interpretation is quite a bit more of the law than many think nearly everywhere.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
But still interpretation requires a law to work on. Interpretations don't come out of thin air.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, that is not because it is illegal to take or use said images, but that an individual may object to said use and a court may determine in their favour.
How can a court decide in their favor if there is no law against it? If there is no criminal or civil law prohibiting something, how can a court possibly forbid it?
I'm no lawyer, but perhaps it's something that a civil court might deal with?
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Many years ago I was on a train and feeling pretty miserable after having just broken up with someone. I glanced up to realize that the middle-aged woman sitting opposite me was covertly sketching me!
I gave her a frosty stare and she put the sketchbook aside, and I resumed glumly staring out of the window, only to see in the reflection that she'd resumed. I was furious and got up and moved.
Why were you furious? I really don't get this.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Why were you furious? I really don't get this.
1) It was covert. She knew I wasn't going to like it, but she was determined to do it anyway. It wasn't honest on her part. She could see I didn't like it and pretended to stop - then resumed when she thought I wasn't looking. In other words, she knew I didn't like it and didn't care.
2) I didn't at any stage give my consent to her creating an artwork of me for other people's entertainment.
3) I have every right to look/feel depressed (if I am at the time) on public transport without someone making a feature of it. To make a feature of it shows a certain insensitivity.
4) At no point did she apologize or offer to show me the picture. I was seriously tempted to ask to see it, then rip it out of her sketchbook and tear it up. Of course I didn't, but it's how I felt at the time.
Would you have sat there and smiled, maybe struck a flattering pose, and allowed her to continue, if it had been you?
[ 16. March 2013, 20:38: Message edited by: Ariel ]
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But still interpretation requires a law to work on. Interpretations don't come out of thin air.
Quite. I think selling photos is different. I am not a lawyer but I understand the law regarding commercialization of someone's image is complex. An image might have been legally obtained, but if you want to make money out of it I think that becomes more complicated.
Obviously images can be used in newspapers without such restriction, but I recall reading about successful legal action when an advertising campaign had used someone's image without their consent.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But still interpretation requires a law to work on. Interpretations don't come out of thin air.
I looked a bit and tried to find something definitive, but that was more difficult than I thought. Here is a relevant line from a California lawyer's site discussing two court cases.
quote:
There is certainly a line between the two where liability arises, and that line has not yet been completely defined by the courts and the legislature.
Roughly, as you are an adult male, I may take your photo as long as I am on public property (or private property with public admission) and you are reasonably on view. If I benefit financially or use you to represent something, you might have a legal claim. Unless I am a news gatherer.
As I understand it anyway, IANAL.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
I'm no lawyer, but perhaps it's something that a civil court might deal with?
Yes, but civil courts decide matters of civil law, and a civil law is still a law.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If I benefit financially or use you to represent something, you might have a legal claim. Unless I am a news gatherer.
As I understand it anyway, IANAL.
I think part of the distinction is between famous people and non-famous people, however the courts decide to define that; IANAL either, but I remember reading yonks ago about that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I happen to be reading a novel right now, by Amor Towles, loosely based around the famous photographs of Walker Evans that were taken on the New York subway in the 1930's. Most of them taken without the knowledge of the person sitting opposite him. I was wondering how they might have felt about it so Ariel's story is particularly interesting to me.
I don't mind people taking my picture so long as I'm out in public anyway, but I wouldn't want one taken while I was, say, sunbathing in my backyard.
The privacy I'm concerned about these days is more in line with things like our psychiatrists reporting our dreams to the guy who sells guns at the flea market.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The privacy I'm concerned about these days is more in line with things like our psychiatrists reporting our dreams to the guy who sells guns at the flea market.
Please explain?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Sorry Boogie, maybe this is more of a remark for the gun control thread but it has a lot to do with privay, too.
Gun control laws in some states require therapists to report anyone they think might have violent tendencies to a data base for use by gun sellers.
This article discusses what I think is a gross violation of patient/doctor confidentiality. Since about 95% of gun violence is caused by people who are not deemed mentally ill, I don't think this violation of privacy is at all worth it. In fact it may result in more mentally ill people being afraid to seek help. Fear that going to the doctor will increase government control over one's self is one of the typical paranoid schizophrenic's greatest fears. Now it would be real.
I think this emphasis on "keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people," is a smoke screen by the NRA in order to look like they're doing something.
IMHO gun control should be about controlling the types of guns sold, not about taking away basic civil liberties of citizens like their right to medical privacy.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I have started having a go at street photography - of course, you want the person to be unaware of you taking the photo as it's the image which matters. If they then look at me I say 'go on then, smile'. I have not (yet) had an adverse reaction. I find that most people assume you are not taking their photo - why would you?
Public spaces are less and less private, that's for sure - most councils have CCTV for security purposes. But we mostly forget about them.
I would be absolutely furious if anyone photographed me without my permission. You can't possibly assume people don't mind if (as you say) most of them don't know that you are taking their photo anyway. The fact that you wouldn't mind doesn't give you the right to infringe another person's desire for privacy, or to assume that they don't have that desire. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
CCTV is different. I'm not entirely happy with it, but I recognise that it is often necessary. However, it is impersonal, and as long as the people recorded are doing nothing dodgy, nobody is interested in looking at their images - but photographing people specifically so that you can look at their images without their knowledge? No.
I agree with Drifting Star here - and with the distinction between someone specifically taking photos of people without consent vs CCTV or incidental picture-taking. I was actually quite shocked by Boogie's post - then I was angry. Properly angry. You might think that's an over-reaction or not understand it, however, it's how I feel about pictures, although if you took my photo without having the courtesy to ask, you wouldn't know how genuinely hurtful and upsetting I find it.
I hate having my photo taken - hate it burningly with no exceptions (people do seem to like to whine along the lines of "but what if it's just your back and I never let you see it..?" - incapable of accepting that no is no). If I see someone with a camera, I remove myself from the possible frame, as much as possible. If Boogie, or some other person looking for photos for whatever "reason"
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's not about invading privacy - it's about getting an interesting image, which tells a story.
takes my photo, and I realise it, I am very likely to tell them to delete the image. I don't need to explain if it's a picture of me and they didn't bother to ask me. I have my own reasons for hating being in photos, and I don't owe anyone who doesn't know me an explanation.
At the same time, I accept that if I am on stage, or in a role where I am on display or something as part of a work or volunteering role, there will be times when I have to just suck it up and accept it. I live in London - so I'll be photographed many times on CCTV or in the background of people's pictures. This I hate, but have to man up and accept it as part of living in the society I inhabit.
I don't see the use of my image in pictures as a privacy issue, it's just bloody rude to deliberately take someone's picture without asking, just assuming that nobody has a problem with it. That's different from being incidentally there. If I'm on stage, it's like having tacitly given permission. If I'm working and on show - for example on a ship coming into dock at a festival where there are press - then it's also like tacitly having given permission. If I walk into the background of someone's holiday shots, well I didn't notice the photographer, they'll never really notice me, and I should have noticed them and avoided them. If I'm on CCTV it's part of being in a city, like a sort of social contract, for better or worse.
If I was the person in the picture Boogie linked to, and I ever found out, I would be trying to hunt down whoever took it and telling them exactly what I thought of their rude assumption that I want to play in their attempt at art, and demanding that they deleted the image. Demanding repeatedly until they did. If I met them, I'd be enjoying 'accidentally' knocking their camera/phone off a high table, or hoping with a song in my heart that they'd run at great speed into my outstretched fist.
There are many situations where we don't have options about our image being used. People's little photography projects are not in that category, whether they blithely assume that nobody minds or not. The Googly Glasses have potential to make consent more difficult to give, and to allow people who are at best rude and misguided and at worst malicious to take advantage of others.
It has already been pointed out that it might be easy to glean people's PINs or other personal details using them. Is it possible to extend legislation to help with this? Is it inevitable that we have to accept stretching of our boundaries, and be more actively responsible for hiding sensitive personal data? I don't know. I suppose it's just a sort of evolving thing and that we trade off as technology gives us more things we can do.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I understand the not wanting a photo taken of oneself. I do not understand the wish of violence.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
Metaphorical. Hyperbole employed to illustrate boiling fury.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
luvandaisies - I am well aware that there are people who hate having their photos taken and would more than happily delete if asked. This hasn't happened yet. Mostly, if people see me, I say 'go on, smile' - and they laugh.
I will be painting some of the images with another 'attempt at art'. There is nothing wrong with this, it has happened for millennia.
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
Is your sig.
It's what I'm doing with my photography. It's out of my comfort zone, for sure. But at the same time I am fascinated by it - and by people's varying reactions (including yours).
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
luvandaisies - I am well aware that there are people who hate having their photos taken and would more than happily delete if asked. This hasn't happened yet. Mostly, if people see me, I say 'go on, smile' - and they laugh.
But mostly you do it covertly, so people don't know. They don't have the choice.
Some people, for example me, find it really upsets them. Doesn't that matter? If I stumbled across a photo of me on the internet, like that one you linked to, I'd be really thrown, it's hard to describe how upset and angry it would make me. Doesn't that matter? The majority of people don't seem to mind photos being taken of them, the minority do - don't they matter?
It's not illegal to take photographs of people when they're out in public without their permission. Rude, but not illegal.
Does the right to do so outweigh people's right to know and to refuse? I would say not, because the photographer is actively doing something that exploits that person - invades their privacy, maybe. The photographee is going about their business and has no part in the contract between the photographer and themself. They don't get to choose whether to enter into that contract.
It's an unequal relationship because all the power is with one person at the expense of the other. Or doesn't that matter?
If the photographer then goes on to post that image online, having both taken it and then distributed it on the internet without bothering to seek the subject's permission, they really are both exploiting their subject and ignoring their privacy.
CCTV and so on have some purpose to them, and there are signs to notify people of the cameras, so there is some honesty there. That makes the dent made in privacy more acceptable.
If to "explore, dream, discover" means doing so at someone else's expense, doing something that might conceivably offend, anger, or hurt them, even if it's for reasons that one might dismiss as silly because they don't fall into one's own set of reactions - then maybe it's not a good avenue of exploration, given that there are so many ways to push one's horizons and explore one's comfort-zone without being actively and deliberately rude like 'street photography' seems to me to be.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
luvandaisies - I am well aware that there are people who hate having their photos taken and would more than happily delete if asked. This hasn't happened yet. Mostly, if people see me, I say 'go on, smile' - and they laugh.
But mostly you do it covertly, so people don't know. They don't have the choice.
I'm not covert at ALL - I am in plain view with (big) Canon 60D camera, standing in the middle of the pavement as people walk by!
I should have said "Mostly, if people notice me, I say 'go on, smile' - and they laugh."
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
My apologies, I can't continue this conversation with any degree of civility. I'm therefore going to withdraw from this tangent.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Metaphorical. Hyperbole employed to illustrate boiling fury.
I didn't see much of a metaphor there. If you had written "boiling fury" or "vats of lava," that would have been a metaphor. Talk of fists is no metaphor.
There are many things going on in public spaces I don't like. Unless it's illegal, there's precious little I can do about it, aside from cross the offender off my Christmas card list or, perhaps, take another way to work if that's practical.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
If I was the person in the picture Boogie linked to, and I ever found out, I would be trying to hunt down whoever took it and telling them exactly what I thought of their rude assumption that I want to play in their attempt at art, and demanding that they deleted the image. Demanding repeatedly until they did. If I met them, I'd be enjoying 'accidentally' knocking their camera/phone off a high table, or hoping with a song in my heart that they'd run at great speed into my outstretched fist.
I hope you would be equally okay with me 'accidentally' blowing your knee out or holding some personal possession of yours as surety (and proof of identity) while restraining you in wait for the police to arrive.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bean Sidhe
Shipmate
# 11823
|
Posted
I'm very concerned about public space, communal space. Hate the way, for example, that town centres are being replaced by malls that pull down the shutters as soon as the shops are closed and there's no more money to be made.
That's the context in which I see this issue. Public space is public, when you're in it, you are public. And so? What is anybody scared of? It's only the world out there, and it belongs to everyone. If you want to walk around in a little bubble of privacy, wear a burkah.
[ 17. March 2013, 20:59: Message edited by: Bean Sidhe ]
Posts: 4363 | From: where the taxis won't go | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
My apologies, I can't continue this conversation with any degree of civility. I'm therefore going to withdraw from this tangent.
No problem ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But I would love others to tell me what they think - this is all very new to me and I am only beginning to form my own opinions on it.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jenn.
Shipmate
# 5239
|
Posted
My mind keeps harking back to a time a few years ago when I had a very distressing phone call when out in public. There was nowhere for me to go which was private so I sat in public space sobbing waiting for someone to collect me.
I am aware that people saw me that day, some stared, some gave funny looks. I can do nothing about that. However, if someone had chosen to memorialize that distress in a photograph and then posted it online I would feel horrified and humiliated. I would not have chosen to grieve in public, and I would resent anyone making it more public than it was by necessity.
Do I think it should be illegal - no. Bad manners - yes. I think it also points to our comfort with using other people as objects, either to make our pictures look better or whatever. It's something I am hugely uncomfortable with, people are NOT objects and should not be treated as such.
Posts: 2282 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Personally I wouldn't photograph anyone in distress. I think respect is important.
Here is an interesting article.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
If the photographer then goes on to post that image online, having both taken it and then distributed it on the internet without bothering to seek the subject's permission, they really are both exploiting their subject and ignoring their privacy.
Exactly. It shows a lack of respect for the subject of the photograph, a want of sensitivity, and an element of dehumanization - I've heard "it's a sport" used by some and "just persevere, any shame/lack of confidence/guilt will go". Sure they will if you normalize it.
I sometimes wonder how "street photographers" would feel if someone they knew and cared about had their picture posted on the internet, available to all and sundry: had their sister or mother held up for scrutiny, male appraisal, personal comments, and so on. You don't know who's out there. Posting anything on the internet is like handing out flyers to anyone who walks past - literally anyone and that might even include potential stalkers or an abusive ex-partner that the subject of the photo is trying to avoid and wouldn't be happy about said person knowing that they're sometimes in this location.
I'm not against street photography completely. What I'm saying is that I think a photographer should ask first and get consent from their subject and they will probably still get their photo. Is that so much to ask - just get consent and show a bit of politeness?
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Well if the photo is more likely to do harm don't you think the victim might be justified in considering the photo a worse infraction than the discussion?
It's not the photo itself, it's the spreading of it.
If I'm wearing Google Glass, or some other system that records images automatically, then the mere act of my recording an image of you in a private moment is no more an invasion of privacy than if I see you in that moment.
If I whip out my camera and take a photo of you, that's the same as if I was staring at you. I hope nobody here would consider it appropriate to sit and stare at someone who was, let's say, having an emotional phonecall at a table in a cafe.
If I take my record of your private moment and start spreading it around, then I am pond-slime of the first water. It doesn't matter whether my record is a photo, a video, or a memory. Now, spreading the photo is worse than spreading the description of your grief, because your photo contains your identity, whereas a description doesn't.
My describing Jenn's grief to some friends would be crass, but assuming none of us knew her, it would go no further. If I sent copies of her photo around, it doesn't take many people until all of Jenn's friends and colleagues have seen the picture. So greater harm from an initially similar crass act.
It is easy to imagine that I might want to automatically record images of people that I meet as an aide-memoire, because I'm very bad with names, for example. So next time I meet someone, the computer can prompt me that this is Dave, that we met at the cycle club last month, and that I shouldn't agree to ride with him because he's fast.
It's not the recording that is a problem, but the dissemination.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
What I'm saying is that I think a photographer should ask first and get consent from their subject and they will probably still get their photo. Is that so much to ask - just get consent and show a bit of politeness?
In practice, ask afterwards with the offer to delete is more likely - most people are self-conscious when "posing," and would ruin the image that the photographer wants to capture.
But I agree with you (although I don't think it should be a legal requirement - making it illegal to be rude has other problems....)
If you're just incidental to the photo, there isn't an issue, though. If a photographer photographs a street scene, and it just happens to include in the crowd a couple who are supposedly on a business trip in a different country, and the photo gets published, and the couple get expensive divorces, then that's just too bad.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The level of violent imagery displayed by some of the post, literal or not, is fairly disturbing.
Regarding street photography. Taking a person's photo if they are aware results in a different image than if they are not. This is not to say there is no ethical concern, but I do understand why the non-jerk street photographers would still shoot first.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I will be painting some of the images with another 'attempt at art'. There is nothing wrong with this, it has happened for millennia.
Would you feel comfortable recording a street musician and putting their music into a sound collection without their permission? Even with a large, visible piece of recording equipment?
I don't feel violent about it, but I don't want to be a part of anybody's art project without being asked. I would have the same reaction to having my photo taken without permission as I do to the sexist assholes who tell women on the street to "smile"- mind your own beeswax. My image isn't your concern.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'm not covert at ALL - I am in plain view with (big) Canon 60D camera, standing in the middle of the pavement as people walk by!
And I forgot to respond to this- what are people supposed to do if they don't want their photo taken and you're standing in the middle of the sidewalk with a camera snapping away? Dodge down an alley? Go around the block? Your body language is basically telling people "Inconvenience yourself or I *will* take your picture".
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
If I were walking by Boogie and I didn't want my picture taken, I would say "excuse me." I can't say I would personally feel inconvenienced at all. YMMV
Yeah, but by the time you're close enough to speak, the picture's already been taken.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
