4 ms·

I aggre, the monk has clearly "chosen" to share them to the writer. The monk has a number of options: 1. Reset the iPod(which he cant do cause it requires an

I aggre, the monk has clearly "chosen" to share them to the writer. The monk has a number of options: 1. Reset the iPod(which he cant do cause it requires an appleId password), 2. Dont take pictures with the Ipod. 3. Disable icloud sync.(i think one can do that with out authentication) 4. Dont use the Ipod. 5. Use it and share the pictures. He has clearly "chosen" nr 5. I know this is controversial but in my mind if you fuck up it is up to you to "fix" it. It's capitalism.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
arrrg 11y ago
My ethical view on this is that in general (but not always) you need explicit consent before you publish the photograph of someone. Just having access to the photos (in this case it’s probably still the monk who has the copyright to those photos, but that’s a trickier question, but certainly also another potential angle to look at this) or even having copyright to the photos is not enough. That’s also not an altogether uncommon view. In Germany it’s codified into law, for example. There should obviously be exceptions to this and some are really easy to come up with (political events or demonstrations or all kinds of public events in general), with others it gets trickier, but most if not all of the monk’s photos shouldn’t be exceptions. Also, many of those photos have more people than the monk in them, so it’s not like you could frame this as some sort of punishment of a thief. The other people are just as affected!
rahimnathwani 11y ago
"the monk has clearly "chosen" to share them to the writer" Even if you accept that, it doesn't mean it's not a dick move to share the photos on the internet. Think about the photos you've shared with friends. Would you be happy if all of them were made available to everyone in the world?

4 ms·

I aggre, the monk has clearly "chosen" to share them to the writer. The monk has a number of options: 1. Reset the iPod(which he cant do cause it requires an

by callesgg 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
arrrg 11y ago
My ethical view on this is that in general (but not always) you need explicit consent before you publish the photograph of someone. Just having access to the photos (in this case it’s probably still the monk who has the copyright to those photos, but that’s a trickier question, but certainly also another potential angle to look at this) or even having copyright to the photos is not enough. That’s also not an altogether uncommon view. In Germany it’s codified into law, for example. There should obviously be exceptions to this and some are really easy to come up with (political events or demonstrations or all kinds of public events in general), with others it gets trickier, but most if not all of the monk’s photos shouldn’t be exceptions. Also, many of those photos have more people than the monk in them, so it’s not like you could frame this as some sort of punishment of a thief. The other people are just as affected!
rahimnathwani 11y ago
"the monk has clearly "chosen" to share them to the writer" Even if you accept that, it doesn't mean it's not a dick move to share the photos on the internet. Think about the photos you've shared with friends. Would you be happy if all of them were made available to everyone in the world?