|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Privacy in the Modern World
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
During the creation of their Street View programme, Google collected more than images. Passwords, e-mail, etc. were gathered from unsecured networks. This was, of course, a bit naughty.
However, it is this bit which concerns me.
quote:
The agreement paves the way for a major privacy battle over Google Glass, the heavily promoted wearable computer in the form of glasses, Mr. Cleland said. “If you use Google Glass to record a couple whispering to each other in Starbucks, have you violated their privacy?” he asked. “Well, 38 states just said they have a problem with the unauthorized collection of people’s data.”
But is it the same thing? How much privacy is to be expected in public places? Unless you live fairly remotely, chances are you have been recorded in public. Even if you do not live in London, you are in someone else's photo, recorded in the background of someone else's note taking, etc.
Photography has always been a battleground, but the advent of cameras in your mobile (and digital photography) has changed the game. Even more so will Google Glass.
Understand, I am a private person. If I am not doing something deliberately for public consumption, I would rather it remain private. However, I am acutely aware that public spaces are public. Deliberately recording another in public without their permission; rude and a breach of etiquette. But should it be illegal? And what about the aforementioned accidental recordings? And, with more cities around the world adding cameras in public spaces, is it a double standard to prohibit private occurrences? How private should public be?
Apologies for a non-pope related thread.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Apologies for a non-pope related thread.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
I don’t think we can prevent images being taken – after all CCTV is very useful for preventing and detecting crime, and there are simply too many mobile phones out there.
It’s also going to be difficult to stop them being used unless agreed to by everyone in the image or recording, because if you know the answer to the question will be “no”, they why bother asking the question.
What we need to do is legislate for the USE of those images/recordings. They shouldn’t be USED for any kind of marketing or information gathering of individuals/vehicles etc. I would caveat that to say that a judge may order those images to be provided before a court if necessary.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Here is an interesting article.
Something many might not consider -
"How many of you will turn off your Glass while punching in your PIN? How about when a person's credit card is visible from the edge of your vision? How about when opening your bills, filing out tax information, or filing out a health form? Remember that computers can recognize numbers and letters blazingly fast - even a passing glance as you walk past a stranger's wallet can mean that the device on your face learns her credit card number. All of this information can be compromised with a security breach, revealing both the information of the one using Glass and the people they surrounds themselves with."
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Apologies for a non-pope related thread.
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.
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, although many parents strongly object to photography of their children, thinking that they have a legal right to forbid it; as well, mall cops have a confused understanding of it. In most European countries, there is a civil code right of subjects to their image and its presentation. In northern Spain, I discovered that public photography was particularly frowned upon as it was a targetting tool during the Unpleasantness of militant Basque nationalism.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drifting Star
Drifting against the wind
# 12799
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Heraclitus
Posts: 3126 | From: A thin place. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
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.
Here are some excellent examples of street photography. It's not about invading privacy - it's about getting an interesting image, which tells a story.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
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.
What about someone looking at you without permission? I'm not sure there's a legally defensible difference between capturing photons with the eye and capturing them with a camera. Selling such photos may bear a legal distinction as it qualifies as commercial activity in a way seeing doesn't, but that's a different issue.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drifting Star
Drifting against the wind
# 12799
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
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.
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.
Here are some excellent examples of street photography. It's not about invading privacy - it's about getting an interesting image, which tells a story.
Why should that make any difference? It's still an infringement of privacy.
quote:
Originally posted by DocTor:
What about someone looking at you without permission? I'm not sure there's a legally defensible difference between capturing photons with the eye and capturing them with a camera. Selling such photos may bear a legal distinction as it qualifies as commercial activity in a way seeing doesn't, but that's a different issue.
I'm not talking about a legal distinction. I'm not aware that I'm not allowed to protest against an invasion of privacy if it isn't illegal. Looking at a person is entirely different. Capturing an image to keep and look at and possibly share with others is very, very different.
Edited to add in the relevant part of my initial post, which Boogie, for some reason, had removed.
[ 15. March 2013, 14:59: Message edited by: Drifting Star ]
--------------------
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Heraclitus
Posts: 3126 | From: A thin place. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Drifting Star
Drifting against the wind
# 12799
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
She shortened your post, because otherwise posts get inconveniently long.
Yes, but she removed the relevant part, not the less important part.
BTW Apologies to Croesus for mis-attributing his quote
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Why is it more offensive if I take a picture of a gorgeous building that you are standing in front of than if a teenage girl sees you, admires your looks, and then shows them to her friend by pointing to you and whispering? The girl is not just looking at you, she's talkign about you, which is what you said you object to.
Where did I say I minded people talking about me? I also didn't say that I objected to being an incidental part of a photograph of something else. I said I objected to having my photograph taken and kept by a stranger without my permission.
--------------------
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Heraclitus
Posts: 3126 | From: A thin place. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What about someone looking at you without permission? I'm not sure there's a legally defensible difference between capturing photons with the eye and capturing them with a camera.
There is certainly a legally defensible difference between testifying about your memory of what somebody said, and taping them without their knowledge and presenting that tape in court as evidence. The difference seems quite real and quite legally defensible.
---
This article Obscurity: A Better Way to Think About Your Data Than 'Privacy' has some interesting things to say on the subject of privacy, and of course applies to more than data. The thesis is in the title but it's well worth reading.
[ 15. March 2013, 15:30: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ArachnidinElmet
Shipmate
# 17346
|
Posted
It will be interesting to see if the use of Google Glasses or similar is a problem in London. In the last few years there have been a number of cases of over-zealous police/security guards stopping legitimate and legal photography by journalists and tourists, of buildings and even buses in London (especially in the Olympic Park pre-games). The pictures are deleted or the camera confiscated. They are inevitably given their cameras back by the authorities, but still not a fun experience.
Unfortunately Google have history of doing first, thinking later.
--------------------
'If a pleasant, straight-forward life is not possible then one must try to wriggle through by subtle manoeuvres' - Kafka
Posts: 1887 | From: the rhubarb triangle | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
CCTV is different. I'm not entirely happy with it, but I recognise that it is often necessary.
The other thing that is necessary is a legal framework consistent with a free and open society. I think that any legislation which necessitated consent be given before obtaining photographs in a public place would take us towards censorship, secrecy, and be open to abuse.
It is impolite to photograph someone without their permission, and etiquette will vary depending on how personal/impersonal the context is, but I can't imagine any way of legislating to enforce these good manners.
[ 15. March 2013, 15:53: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There is certainly a legally defensible difference between testifying about your memory of what somebody said, and taping them without their knowledge and presenting that tape in court as evidence. The difference seems quite real and quite legally defensible.
Depends on context and jurisdiction. For instance, a lot of jurisdictions distinguish between taping a phone conversation (where the subjects have an expectation of not being overheard) and taping a conversation in a public place (where such expectations, though not non-existent, are weaker). Local jurisdiction can also matter. I recall during the Whitewater scandal, when Linda Tripp was indicted by the state of Maryland for secretly recording her phone conversations with Monica Lewinski, one commentator observed that if she'd made (and recorded) the call from the other side of the Potomac in Virginia she would not have been legally liable as Virginia did not have similar wiretapping laws.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drifting Star
Drifting against the wind
# 12799
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It is impolite to photograph someone without their permission, and etiquette will vary depending on how personal/impersonal the context is, but I can't imagine any way of legislating to enforce these good manners.
I agree. Good manners are something that we have some right to expect, but not everything can be legislated for - and I would certainly not want to live in a society where it was. I would like to live in a society where the majority of people instinctively considered another person's feelings before using them.
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. I am not expecting my preferences to be enshrined in law, but I do believe that I am entitled to privacy insofar as my behaviour doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights (and I'm not inclined to see the desire to take a photograph as a right of any sort).
--------------------
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Heraclitus
Posts: 3126 | From: A thin place. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
CCTV and digital camera technology was just the start. The next big thing, which is already occurring, is the use of drones for surveillance. The idea of a guardian angel might come true, they'll just be in the form of drones.
Here's a few links.
Domestic Drones Allow For New Forms Of Privacy Invasion
Help EFF find out what domestic drones are doing…
Domestic use of aerial drones by law enforcement likely to prompt privacy debate
It seems that there may be a valid law enforcement and protection purpose, but there is also a possibility to simply hover a drone over someone's property and send stills and video in real time. Soon, no doubt, people will be able to buy them for home use, instead of attaching a camera to a hobbyist's remote controlled aircraft.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
But language like "entitled" implies to a legal right. You are entitled to privacy in your own home, but not in a public place.
You might have an aspiration that people will respect your privacy even in public, it might even be a laudable aspiration, but you aren't entitled to it.
Likewise I think that the law does see the ability to take photographs in public as a right. Not in the sense that it is protected by a constitution, but in the sense that it isn't forbidden.
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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. So far I've found people friendly and easy going, but I can't expect not to be sworn at now and again! (A bit like walking across a road on a zebra crossing when a truck is coming - I am in the 'right', but that may not stop me getting knocked over!)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It is impolite to photograph someone without their permission, and etiquette will vary depending on how personal/impersonal the context is, but I can't imagine any way of legislating to enforce these good manners.
I'm left wondering where the line of etiquette is drawn though. I mean, I enjoy railway photography (as anyone who has perused my Flickr account will know), and often getting a good shot means having people in it. This shot, for instance, wouldn't be the same without the guard. Similarly, I think the chap checking his camera while turning away from the loco itself really makes this one work. And I could give plenty of other examples.
How many of those photos I just linked to would be a breach of etiquette, in your opinion?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drifting Star
Drifting against the wind
# 12799
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But language like "entitled" implies to a legal right.
We'll have to agree to differ on that one! I think that life and people are far too complicated to be able to reduce everything to legal and therefore acceptable, or illegal and therefore unacceptable. Nor would I want to do so.
[ 15. March 2013, 16:22: Message edited by: Drifting Star ]
--------------------
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Heraclitus
Posts: 3126 | From: A thin place. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
Looking at a person is entirely different. Capturing an image to keep and look at and possibly share with others is very, very different.
What of someone with a photographic memory and some artistic ability? If he walks past you, goes home and sketches you, because he found your face interesting, how do you feel about that?
In a sense, he has captured and shared an image in just the same way as a photographer, just with biological equipment.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drifting Star
Drifting against the wind
# 12799
|
Posted
I think it's so unlikely that I can't bring myself to worry about it.
--------------------
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Heraclitus
Posts: 3126 | From: A thin place. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Drifting Star - I wonder if your dislike is more connected with 'objectification' of the human form? I started taking 'selfies' due to lack of models and found it really hard to see myself as the object of a photo like I usually do with flowers etc, especially in the post-processing stage.
But this kind of work has been happening long before cameras were around. The human form is interesting, fascinating, beautiful and worthy of art imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
She shortened your post, because otherwise posts get inconveniently long.
Yes, but she removed the relevant part, not the less important part.
In your opinion. Clearly not in hers. This whole thread is about opinions. You have opinions about privacy and about what parts of your posts are quoted. Both are perfectly reasonable, but you seem to object to others disagreeing with your opinions and acting upon it.
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Why is it more offensive if I take a picture of a gorgeous building that you are standing in front of than if a teenage girl sees you, admires your looks, and then shows them to her friend by pointing to you and whispering? The girl is not just looking at you, she's talkign about you, which is what you said you object to.
Where did I say I minded people talking about me? I also didn't say that I objected to being an incidental part of a photograph of something else. I said I objected to having my photograph taken and kept by a stranger without my permission.
Talking was the wrong word. But you objected to your image being shown to others via a photograph. The teenage girl who was admiring you would be showing your image to another person when she pointed you out to her friend. That seems much more an observation of you than if you end up in someone's photograph of a street scene. I don't see why you object to the one and not the other.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Drifting Star: quote:
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.
Well, that complaint window probably closed about the time cameras became portable and didn't need seconds or minutes to catch an image. Now with phone cameras clicking away out there, I'd be surprised if we aren't all on someone's Flickr or other account.
I'm pretty sure that privacy is dead or in hospice care, anyway. I remember when the Lower Merion School District (Pennsylvania) got into hot water over secretly activating spyware in students' school-provided laptops. Parents seemed to be much more outraged than the students, many who took it pretty casually. Legal authorities looked into the matter but: quote:
Federal and local authorities also have chosen not to pursue criminal charges against the district or any of its staff, despite pictures being taken of students sleeping and partially undressed.
Privacy isn't really protected now. With current technology running rampant, that ship has left.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But language like "entitled" implies to a legal right.
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
We'll have to agree to differ on that one! I think that life and people are far too complicated to be able to reduce everything to legal and therefore acceptable, or illegal and therefore unacceptable. Nor would I want to do so.
I'm not seeking to equate acceptable with legal. There are many things which are unacceptable to me yet legal and vice versa. Acceptable is relative term and legal isn't.
I think you will be hard pushed to find a definition of entitled that doesn't carry some legal connotation.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
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.
I wasn't trying to make you justify your preference, I was genuinely trying to understand it.
I mean, for you to feel so strongly about something that you'd be "absolutely furious" if it happened must mean you've got some reason beyond mere personal preference for feeling that way, surely?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
Yes, but she removed the relevant part, not the less important part.
Sorry - that was not intentional at all. I don't communicate well in words. I'm a visual person - thus the photos!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Legal authorities looked into the matter but: quote:
Federal and local authorities also have chosen not to pursue criminal charges against the district or any of its staff, despite pictures being taken of students sleeping and partially undressed.
Privacy isn't really protected now. With current technology running rampant, that ship has left.
I'm not sure you can generalise. I googled and found two similar instances that seem to have been taken more seriously by the authorities.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drifting Star
Drifting against the wind
# 12799
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
In your opinion. Clearly not in hers. This whole thread is about opinions. You have opinions about privacy and about what parts of your posts are quoted. Both are perfectly reasonable, but you seem to object to others disagreeing with your opinions and acting upon it.
Actually, no. She was responding to something in the other part of my post, the bit that was about photographs and not about CCTV. That's not opinion, it's fact.
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
Where did I say I minded people talking about me? I also didn't say that I objected to being an incidental part of a photograph of something else. I said I objected to having my photograph taken and kept by a stranger without my permission.
Talking was the wrong word. But you objected to your image being shown to others via a photograph. The teenage girl who was admiring you would be showing your image to another person when she pointed you out to her friend. That seems much more an observation of you than if you end up in someone's photograph of a street scene. I don't see why you object to the one and not the other.
It has absolutely nothing to do with people talking about me, or seeing me in the street. I've already said that. I am also (as I've also already specifically said) not referring to appearing as an incidental extra in a photo of something else. Can I say that any more clearly?
--------------------
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Heraclitus
Posts: 3126 | From: A thin place. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drifting Star
Drifting against the wind
# 12799
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
Yes, but she removed the relevant part, not the less important part.
Sorry - that was not intentional at all. I don't communicate well in words. I'm a visual person - thus the photos!
Thanks Boogie - I assumed it was. It really wasn't a big deal (for me at least!)
--------------------
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Heraclitus
Posts: 3126 | From: A thin place. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I think my biggest concern is my bank details - I will be keeping card and PIN well covered in future, in case of google glasses clocking them.
What people do with my image is up to them, I don't do nude sunbathing any more.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
But you objected to your image being shown to others via a photograph. The teenage girl who was admiring you would be showing your image to another person when she pointed you out to her friend. That seems much more an observation of you than if you end up in someone's photograph of a street scene. I don't see why you object to the one and not the other.
I'm obviously not in agreement with drifting star overall, but I can imagine different levels of objection here.
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?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Likewise I think that the law does see the ability to take photographs in public as a right. Not in the sense that it is protected by a constitution, but in the sense that it isn't forbidden.
It's probably more accurate to think of taking photographs as an expression of "liberty" rather than a right.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drifting Star
Drifting against the wind
# 12799
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Drifting Star - I wonder if your dislike is more connected with 'objectification' of the human form? I started taking 'selfies' due to lack of models and found it really hard to see myself as the object of a photo like I usually do with flowers etc, especially in the post-processing stage.
But this kind of work has been happening long before cameras were around. The human form is interesting, fascinating, beautiful and worthy of art imo.
Not the objectification of the human form - I certainly have problems with that but I don't think it's an issue in this context.* Objectification of a person - yes, I think you have something there. I think that I have a right not to be treated as something that is available to be used by other people. Being reduced to just being a body may have something to do with it, but it is more about simply having my feelings and preferences considered.
I do think that many of the photos you linked to are beautiful (although a lot of them seem very, very staged to me, and presumably therefore taken with permission).
*It could be, but I have no doubt that your photos are taken and processed sensitively.
--------------------
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Heraclitus
Posts: 3126 | From: A thin place. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
Not the objectification of the human form - I certainly have problems with that but I don't think it's an issue in this context.* Objectification of a person - yes, I think you have something there. I think that I have a right not to be treated as something that is available to be used by other people. Being reduced to just being a body may have something to do with it, but it is more about simply having my feelings and preferences considered.
I think you mean "objectification of a person's image". A picture is not a person. You seem to not make any distinction between how you are treated and how your image is treated.
For a perspective on this issue from a civil liberties perspective, there's the blog Photography Is Not A Crime. A lot of the issues addressed by them involve police (agents of the state) not wanting to be photographed while doing their jobs in a public setting.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drifting Star
Drifting against the wind
# 12799
|
Posted
No, I don't think so. I would say that how I am treated encompasses how my image is treated, but is not the same thing. Because my need for privacy (which is about me as a person, and not my image) includes not having my picture taken without my permission (which is about my image), the two are intertwined in this case.
[ 15. March 2013, 17:56: Message edited by: Drifting Star ]
--------------------
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Heraclitus
Posts: 3126 | From: A thin place. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It is impolite to photograph someone without their permission, and etiquette will vary depending on how personal/impersonal the context is, but I can't imagine any way of legislating to enforce these good manners.
I'm left wondering where the line of etiquette is drawn though. I mean, I enjoy railway photography (as anyone who has perused my Flickr account will know), and often getting a good shot means having people in it. This shot, for instance, wouldn't be the same without the guard. Similarly, I think the chap checking his camera while turning away from the loco itself really makes this one work. And I could give plenty of other examples.
How many of those photos I just linked to would be a breach of etiquette, in your opinion?
If I were the subject in any of those photographs, I would want the photographer to obtain my permission before publishing any of them. I have no idea if I have any legal right to that, but it's what I would want. The Atlantic article about obscurity to which mousethief linked is very pertinent to my thinking.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
What do you mean by publishing Ruth W?
Putting it up on Flickr or on here as Marvin did?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
Where did I say I minded people talking about me? I also didn't say that I objected to being an incidental part of a photograph of something else. I said I objected to having my photograph taken and kept by a stranger without my permission.
Talking was the wrong word. But you objected to your image being shown to others via a photograph. The teenage girl who was admiring you would be showing your image to another person when she pointed you out to her friend. That seems much more an observation of you than if you end up in someone's photograph of a street scene. I don't see why you object to the one and not the other.
It has absolutely nothing to do with people talking about me, or seeing me in the street. I've already said that. I am also (as I've also already specifically said) not referring to appearing as an incidental extra in a photo of something else. Can I say that any more clearly? [/QB][/QUOTE]I got that it wasn't about talking. As you may have noticed, I'd made a post that included correcting the word. I just wrote the wrong word. I was trying to talk about how much difference there is between sharing of an image immediately versus saving it to share it later. I don't think I see a difference. Mdjon does though, so that may be just me.
I think there is some difference between taking pictures that are of moments that are particularly personal or revealing--for instance many people who want ot be never photographed probably still mind being photographed on the pot more than they mind other places--like a person having an embarrassing event in public and taking a picture of a street scene. The people may be essential to the street scene in such a way to fall afoul of criteria like Drifting Star's without being personally involved at all.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Or how about this rather (in)famous photo. Should Stanley Forman have had to get permission from each of the several dozen people in the crowd in the background of this shot before using it?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
What do you mean by publishing Ruth W?
Putting it up on Flickr or on here as Marvin did?
"To publish" has two main senses -- to put into a publication, such as a newspaper, magazine or book, and to announce, make known, make public. I mean both of them.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Or how about this rather (in)famous photo. Should Stanley Forman have had to get permission from each of the several dozen people in the crowd in the background of this shot before using it?
Or any other newspaper photographer?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Most of these photos were taken in incredibly sensitive, personal moments - but what powerful stories they tell.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Most of these photos were taken in incredibly sensitive, personal moments - but what powerful stories they tell.
That is not a good enough reason to make something public. People should have a choice about whether their stories are published. Even the folks behind Scoopshot, a "citizen journalism" app, say so in the FAQs:
quote:
Am I permitted to photograph people?
If a person is in a public location, you are usually allowed to take a photograph or capture a video. However, it is polite to ask for permission. If you are on private premises, such as a private residence or a commercial office, permission for taking photographs is always required. What is more, do not take photos of people in their homes or in offices through windows, as this is a clear invasion of privacy.
Can my photos or videos feature persons that can be identified?
Unless the person is a well-known public figure, you must have the permission of the person(s) in the photo or video. You should also include the name(s) of the model(s) in the description field. By accepting the Scoopshot Terms of Service, you agree to comply with these rules regarding model release.
I prefer that my incredibly sensitive, personal moments not be recorded and published, and I would very likely refuse to give such permission.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
What of someone with a photographic memory and some artistic ability? If he walks past you, goes home and sketches you, because he found your face interesting, how do you feel about that?
In a sense, he has captured and shared an image in just the same way as a photographer, just with biological equipment.
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.
I feel uncomfortable about a lot of what passes for "street photography". There is a school of thought that encourages covert photography, how to be sneaky (=dishonest) about taking photos, and that regards it as something of a sport. There's also a frame of mind that regards it as a great buzz to capture a picture of a stranger - sometimes to rush up to them, shove a camera right in their face and capture their reaction (then presumably run away sniggering).
And the pictures go up on the internet with lots of personal comments and speculations about the unsuspecting victims. All very cosy, because the photographer doesn't know these people in real life and isn't related to any of them so it doesn't matter that s/he is making a sport of them or putting them on the internet where, for example, someone they don't want to encourage might find them.
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, possibly even to endorse a product you don't approve of.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
