7 ms·

> I would very much like the option to be unphotographable. Too bad, I say. Because when you are in a public place, you cannot expect privacy. I understand how

> I would very much like the option to be unphotographable. Too bad, I say. Because when you are in a public place, you cannot expect privacy. I understand how you feel and why, but there is simply no way of doing this without curtailing somebody else's (legitimate) freedom.

QuantumRoar 10y ago
I do not expect privacy in a public place. But I do expect that not everything I do is recorded and then associated with my name on the Internet. But this is exactly the direction smartphones have taken us. I don't know if you have the same feeling but I do notice a chilling effect in how I behave when I see that someone has their phone out and its camera is pointed approximately in my direction (although they might be checking messages).
the8472 10y ago
Other countries see that differently. The right to one own's picture exists in various jurisdictions, requiring others to either acquire your consent or obscure faces. Also, you can still have reasonable expectations of privacy in public locations, such as your words not being recorded without your consent.
- Sevrene 10y ago
  Or a public bathroom, for example.
gkya 10y ago
> Because when you are in a public place, you cannot expect privacy. Being in a public place does not necessarrily mean being public.
kriro 10y ago
If you own the rights to your own data you can prevent that data from being made public (or used in other ways). A nation state can very well require that social media sites honor this if they want to operate in that country. Search engines can also be forced to delete data etc. Granted I doubt it's practically enforceable in all cases but it's at least theoretically possible. It would be cool if such a button could be detected and people wearing it would get blurred by the photo-software of cell phones automatically.
bildung 10y ago
> Because when you are in a public place, you cannot expect privacy. There's a difference though, between expecting the public to witness one's own actions in that very moment, and having everyone, at any time, forever, being able to replay a recording of that moment. The latter is something only public figures, and only in their public role, should have to expect.
- csydas 10y ago
  I'm actually not sure that reflects reality. Many of the concepts behind a lot of privacy stuff comes from a time and mindset when a camera was a unique device to carry around. Nowadays just about everything can have a camera slapped into it, and the reality is that the number of pictures being taken in any public place at any given time is far greater than it historically has been. As much as I too dislike having my picture taken without consent, the reality of even small towns is that it's probable every person you pass has a camera, and pictures are plentiful as a result. Incidental pictures, pictures of an awkward moment or accident, or just something funny I think have to be expected more, if not by people actively photographing these with their phones/tablets, then passively by accidental photos and by monitoring systems. I don't know if there is a good balance between the two since there's nothing inherently wrong about just taking a picture of your surroundings in a public place - the people there are part of what make the photo. To use an over-used expression, pin-hole sized cameras on phones were just opening pandora's box, and we can't really close that anymore. More than likely, the result of this will be photography obscuring clothing, styles, and technology, some of which others have already posted.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >I'm actually not sure that reflects reality. Many of the concepts behind a lot of privacy stuff comes from a time and mindset when a camera was a unique device to carry around. Maybe social norms should be shaped around what people actually want, rather than what some new or old technology dictates as its default option?
    - philh 10y ago
Dylan16807 10y ago
Most bars aren't public spaces.
- coldtea 10y ago
  Public as in "anyone can come in and see you", not as in "belonging to the state".
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    You don't have a right to take pictures granted anywhere that you can walk into. That makes even less sense than the way I interpreted it.
Sir_Substance 10y ago
>Too bad, I say. Because when you are in a public place, you cannot expect privacy. You may not have a right to privacy, but you should have a right to non-celebrity. Going out in public does not constitute permission to become a figure of mockery on youtube. Requiring everyone to wear their PR-face in public in case they get recorded for all time and broadcast to every person on the planet is dystopic. You totally have the right to take a photo of me, store it on your hard drive and look at it occasionally. Uploading it to reddit might be a different case.
coldtea 10y ago
>Too bad, I say. Because when you are in a public place, you cannot expect privacy. Says who? We had quite a lot of privacy in public spaces before everybody and his dog yielded a cameraphone. Privacy is not a binary ("oh, since you can be seen by people passing by in public anyway, it means you don't have any privacy") -- it's a spectrum. You could still be OK with people seeing you, but not with being photographed AND tagged automatically (e.g. with timestamp and GPS from a friend's phone) AND posted online AND indexed and available for anybody in the world to search for your name/pictures in perpetuity...
- vertex-four 10y ago
  The assertion that privacy is binary is primarily an American legal fiction that the Government and media managed to sell to the people as the only way to view the privacy argument.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    Those kind of bizarro assumptions in American law when the spirit of the law is blatantly obvious always amuse me... E.g. whether it's OK for the government to check your email if you already give it to an email provider vs snail mail, and such BS. Or whether idiots with gun fetishes for "protecting their property" are what was meant by "well armed militias"...
    - al3xnull 10y ago
      Those kind of bizarro "blatantly obvious" comments always amuse me... Get real. Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws has never been "blatantly obvious". Your viewpoint is yours and your bias is confirming it.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws has never been "blatantly obvious". Well, it has always been subject to the political pressure from various lobbies and interests... Judges can write whole treatises with delicate legal interpretations to justify their alliances, government pressure and/or under the table money. Kind of like medieval religious scholars could write treatises on how many angels fit on the head of a pin -- it pays well and furthers their friends cause. Between those issues, the death penalty, three strikes laws, and such -- not to mention widespread litigation mania--, the legal code there is kind of the joke in the western world.

QuantumRoar 10y ago

I do not expect privacy in a public place. But I do expect that not everything I do is recorded and then associated with my name on the Internet. But this is exactly the direction smartphones have taken us. I don't know if you have the same feeling but I do notice a chilling effect in how I behave when I see that someone has their phone out and its camera is pointed approximately in my direction (although they might be checking messages).

the8472 10y ago

Other countries see that differently. The right to one own's picture exists in various jurisdictions, requiring others to either acquire your consent or obscure faces. Also, you can still have reasonable expectations of privacy in public locations, such as your words not being recorded without your consent.

Sevrene 10y ago
Or a public bathroom, for example.

gkya 10y ago

> Because when you are in a public place, you cannot expect privacy. Being in a public place does not necessarrily mean being public.

kriro 10y ago

If you own the rights to your own data you can prevent that data from being made public (or used in other ways). A nation state can very well require that social media sites honor this if they want to operate in that country. Search engines can also be forced to delete data etc. Granted I doubt it's practically enforceable in all cases but it's at least theoretically possible. It would be cool if such a button could be detected and people wearing it would get blurred by the photo-software of cell phones automatically.

bildung 10y ago

> Because when you are in a public place, you cannot expect privacy. There's a difference though, between expecting the public to witness one's own actions in that very moment, and having everyone, at any time, forever, being able to replay a recording of that moment. The latter is something only public figures, and only in their public role, should have to expect.

csydas 10y ago
I'm actually not sure that reflects reality. Many of the concepts behind a lot of privacy stuff comes from a time and mindset when a camera was a unique device to carry around. Nowadays just about everything can have a camera slapped into it, and the reality is that the number of pictures being taken in any public place at any given time is far greater than it historically has been. As much as I too dislike having my picture taken without consent, the reality of even small towns is that it's probable every person you pass has a camera, and pictures are plentiful as a result. Incidental pictures, pictures of an awkward moment or accident, or just something funny I think have to be expected more, if not by people actively photographing these with their phones/tablets, then passively by accidental photos and by monitoring systems. I don't know if there is a good balance between the two since there's nothing inherently wrong about just taking a picture of your surroundings in a public place - the people there are part of what make the photo. To use an over-used expression, pin-hole sized cameras on phones were just opening pandora's box, and we can't really close that anymore. More than likely, the result of this will be photography obscuring clothing, styles, and technology, some of which others have already posted.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >I'm actually not sure that reflects reality. Many of the concepts behind a lot of privacy stuff comes from a time and mindset when a camera was a unique device to carry around. Maybe social norms should be shaped around what people actually want, rather than what some new or old technology dictates as its default option?
  - philh 10y ago

Dylan16807 10y ago

Most bars aren't public spaces.

coldtea 10y ago
Public as in "anyone can come in and see you", not as in "belonging to the state".
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  You don't have a right to take pictures granted anywhere that you can walk into. That makes even less sense than the way I interpreted it.

Sir_Substance 10y ago

>Too bad, I say. Because when you are in a public place, you cannot expect privacy. You may not have a right to privacy, but you should have a right to non-celebrity. Going out in public does not constitute permission to become a figure of mockery on youtube. Requiring everyone to wear their PR-face in public in case they get recorded for all time and broadcast to every person on the planet is dystopic. You totally have the right to take a photo of me, store it on your hard drive and look at it occasionally. Uploading it to reddit might be a different case.

coldtea 10y ago

>Too bad, I say. Because when you are in a public place, you cannot expect privacy. Says who? We had quite a lot of privacy in public spaces before everybody and his dog yielded a cameraphone. Privacy is not a binary ("oh, since you can be seen by people passing by in public anyway, it means you don't have any privacy") -- it's a spectrum. You could still be OK with people seeing you, but not with being photographed AND tagged automatically (e.g. with timestamp and GPS from a friend's phone) AND posted online AND indexed and available for anybody in the world to search for your name/pictures in perpetuity...

vertex-four 10y ago
The assertion that privacy is binary is primarily an American legal fiction that the Government and media managed to sell to the people as the only way to view the privacy argument.
- coldtea 10y ago
  Those kind of bizarro assumptions in American law when the spirit of the law is blatantly obvious always amuse me... E.g. whether it's OK for the government to check your email if you already give it to an email provider vs snail mail, and such BS. Or whether idiots with gun fetishes for "protecting their property" are what was meant by "well armed militias"...
  - al3xnull 10y ago
    Those kind of bizarro "blatantly obvious" comments always amuse me... Get real. Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws has never been "blatantly obvious". Your viewpoint is yours and your bias is confirming it.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws has never been "blatantly obvious". Well, it has always been subject to the political pressure from various lobbies and interests... Judges can write whole treatises with delicate legal interpretations to justify their alliances, government pressure and/or under the table money. Kind of like medieval religious scholars could write treatises on how many angels fit on the head of a pin -- it pays well and furthers their friends cause. Between those issues, the death penalty, three strikes laws, and such -- not to mention widespread litigation mania--, the legal code there is kind of the joke in the western world.