4 ms·

How is it an ethical issue for strangers to look at your face when you are out in public?

metalon 9y ago
More like strangers taking pictures of you without your consent (and often knowledge) with the intent to increase their profits and not sharing any of that with you.
- baldfat 9y ago
  And then able to follow you and know your present location whenever you go by a camera. Minority Personalized Advertising https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bXJ_obaiYQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bXJ_obaiYQ
- 794CD01 9y ago
  Ethically, neither your consent or knowledge is required for someone to see you in public and remember that image. Why they do it isn't really relevant. If they use that image to do something unethical, like commit fraud, it is the fraud that is unethical, not the imaging.
  - gglitch 9y ago
    Until relatively recently, unavailability of large stockpiles of consumer data (at least, stockpiles at the scale now possible) was a significant impediment to a large and probably mostly-undiscovered class of potentially unethical behavior. Do you not suppose the removal of that impediment, with no other equally powerful compensatory regulations or oversight, to at least potentially be a serious problem now or at any time in the future?
    - 794CD01 9y ago
      Until relatively recently, unavailability of large stockpiles of consumer data (at least, stockpiles at the scale now possible) was a significant impediment to a large and probably mostly-undiscovered class of potentially ethical behavior, as well as behavior that actively combats unethical behavior. Data itself is amoral and can be used for either good or bad.
      - gglitch 9y ago
        Ethical behavior isn't a problem.
        794CD01 9y ago
        You might even say it's the opposite.
  - JauntTrooper 9y ago
    I think many people would disagree. It might be legal, but that doesn't mean it's not unethical. If a stranger on the street started following me, taking pictures without permission, and taking notes about my appearance of actions and storing it in their database, I would say he was behaving unethically. Ask street photographers - it's a delicate balance. Many people really dislike having their pictures taken without their permission.
    - 794CD01 9y ago
      That is a lot of words to simply say that some people think it is unethical. Which is an essentially empty statement. Couldn't you at least say most people and make it an argumentum ad populum?
      - baldfat 9y ago
        lawful and ethical are two totally different things. They are both related but are mutually exclusive of each other ethical != opinion Ethical has weight and you can lose your job, and even go to jail for being unethical. RMS actually has a very strong academic ethical mind (Even though I disagree with him more then agree). BUT ethics isn't easily defined. Here is a decent link to defining Ethics. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics/ https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision...
        794CD01 9y ago
        >lawful and ethical are two totally different things. Mind explaining where you think I implied otherwise? Or why you keep repeating this despite the fact that I haven't? >Ethical has weight and you can lose your job, and even go to jail for [what your boss thinks is] unethical. For example, doctors who get fired for performing abortions, something that most of hn doesn't find unethical. >https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics/ https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision... That is itself, merely what Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer find ethical.
      - 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dwaltrip 9y ago
This is a gross mischaracterization of the issue. You aren't looking at the bigger picture. Do we really want to commodotize the simple act of walking down the boulevard? Make every moment in public space (and private digital space!) sliced, diced, and scrutinized by God knows how many data munchers, middlemen, analytics brokers, and ethically challenged people in order compel as much thoughtless consumer spending as possible, long term consequences be damned? Allow incredibly detailed profiles to be built up on every person, spanning the decades of their life? And of course, there is always the danger of governments co-opting and abusing this information years or decades in the future, after adminstrations have come and gone, and laws have been overturned, drastically altered, or ignored. As the tech and richness of the data increases, the temptations will as well. Well meaning people can do nefarious things in certain contexts. I believe our societal institutions and corporate entities are not mature enough to safely handle the power granted by unrestrained, high resolution data on the entire populace Granted, I don't think things would get too terrible without overwhelming protest, but I don't see why we should bet on that.
- 794CD01 9y ago
  "You aren't looking at the bigger picture" is just an arrogant way to say "I think you're wrong and I'm right". It can be safely omitted in favor of actual arguments. >Do we really want to commodotize the simple act of walking down the boulevard? It's not a boulevard you are walking down, but a bazaar. The only difference is that modern technology allows you to visit the bazaar to be "sliced, diced, and scrutinized by God knows how many data munchers, middlemen, analytics brokers, and ethically challenged people in order compel as much thoughtless consumer spending as possible" without physically travelling there. >Allow incredibly detailed profiles to be built up on every person, spanning the decades of their life? Sure. It's called a relationship. Or a memory. >And of course, there is always the danger of governments co-opting and abusing this information years or decades in the future, after adminstrations have come and gone, and laws have been overturned, drastically altered, or ignored. You can safely replace "this information" with virtually anything useful and get the same effect. Do you feel the same about, say, nuclear weapons? Or legal authority to lock people in cages? I would say either of those is far more dangerous than data. Yet we recognize that the power exists regardless, and the government can at least put it to good use. >I believe our societal institutions and corporate entities are not mature enough to safely handle the power granted by unrestrained, high resolution data on the entire populace Then the obvious answer is to improve societal institutions and corporate entities, which is useful in and of itself, rather than futilely trying to impede the progress of technology.

More like strangers taking pictures of you without your consent (and often knowledge) with the intent to increase their profits and not sharing any of that with you.

baldfat 9y ago
And then able to follow you and know your present location whenever you go by a camera. Minority Personalized Advertising https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bXJ_obaiYQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bXJ_obaiYQ
794CD01 9y ago
Ethically, neither your consent or knowledge is required for someone to see you in public and remember that image. Why they do it isn't really relevant. If they use that image to do something unethical, like commit fraud, it is the fraud that is unethical, not the imaging.
- gglitch 9y ago
  Until relatively recently, unavailability of large stockpiles of consumer data (at least, stockpiles at the scale now possible) was a significant impediment to a large and probably mostly-undiscovered class of potentially unethical behavior. Do you not suppose the removal of that impediment, with no other equally powerful compensatory regulations or oversight, to at least potentially be a serious problem now or at any time in the future?
  - 794CD01 9y ago
    Until relatively recently, unavailability of large stockpiles of consumer data (at least, stockpiles at the scale now possible) was a significant impediment to a large and probably mostly-undiscovered class of potentially ethical behavior, as well as behavior that actively combats unethical behavior. Data itself is amoral and can be used for either good or bad.
    - gglitch 9y ago
      Ethical behavior isn't a problem.
      - 794CD01 9y ago
        You might even say it's the opposite.
- JauntTrooper 9y ago
  I think many people would disagree. It might be legal, but that doesn't mean it's not unethical. If a stranger on the street started following me, taking pictures without permission, and taking notes about my appearance of actions and storing it in their database, I would say he was behaving unethically. Ask street photographers - it's a delicate balance. Many people really dislike having their pictures taken without their permission.
  - 794CD01 9y ago
    That is a lot of words to simply say that some people think it is unethical. Which is an essentially empty statement. Couldn't you at least say most people and make it an argumentum ad populum?
    - baldfat 9y ago
      lawful and ethical are two totally different things. They are both related but are mutually exclusive of each other ethical != opinion Ethical has weight and you can lose your job, and even go to jail for being unethical. RMS actually has a very strong academic ethical mind (Even though I disagree with him more then agree). BUT ethics isn't easily defined. Here is a decent link to defining Ethics. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics/ https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision...
      - 794CD01 9y ago
        >lawful and ethical are two totally different things. Mind explaining where you think I implied otherwise? Or why you keep repeating this despite the fact that I haven't? >Ethical has weight and you can lose your job, and even go to jail for [what your boss thinks is] unethical. For example, doctors who get fired for performing abortions, something that most of hn doesn't find unethical. >https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics/ https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision... That is itself, merely what Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer find ethical.
    - 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dwaltrip 9y ago

This is a gross mischaracterization of the issue. You aren't looking at the bigger picture. Do we really want to commodotize the simple act of walking down the boulevard? Make every moment in public space (and private digital space!) sliced, diced, and scrutinized by God knows how many data munchers, middlemen, analytics brokers, and ethically challenged people in order compel as much thoughtless consumer spending as possible, long term consequences be damned? Allow incredibly detailed profiles to be built up on every person, spanning the decades of their life? And of course, there is always the danger of governments co-opting and abusing this information years or decades in the future, after adminstrations have come and gone, and laws have been overturned, drastically altered, or ignored. As the tech and richness of the data increases, the temptations will as well. Well meaning people can do nefarious things in certain contexts. I believe our societal institutions and corporate entities are not mature enough to safely handle the power granted by unrestrained, high resolution data on the entire populace Granted, I don't think things would get too terrible without overwhelming protest, but I don't see why we should bet on that.

794CD01 9y ago
"You aren't looking at the bigger picture" is just an arrogant way to say "I think you're wrong and I'm right". It can be safely omitted in favor of actual arguments. >Do we really want to commodotize the simple act of walking down the boulevard? It's not a boulevard you are walking down, but a bazaar. The only difference is that modern technology allows you to visit the bazaar to be "sliced, diced, and scrutinized by God knows how many data munchers, middlemen, analytics brokers, and ethically challenged people in order compel as much thoughtless consumer spending as possible" without physically travelling there. >Allow incredibly detailed profiles to be built up on every person, spanning the decades of their life? Sure. It's called a relationship. Or a memory. >And of course, there is always the danger of governments co-opting and abusing this information years or decades in the future, after adminstrations have come and gone, and laws have been overturned, drastically altered, or ignored. You can safely replace "this information" with virtually anything useful and get the same effect. Do you feel the same about, say, nuclear weapons? Or legal authority to lock people in cages? I would say either of those is far more dangerous than data. Yet we recognize that the power exists regardless, and the government can at least put it to good use. >I believe our societal institutions and corporate entities are not mature enough to safely handle the power granted by unrestrained, high resolution data on the entire populace Then the obvious answer is to improve societal institutions and corporate entities, which is useful in and of itself, rather than futilely trying to impede the progress of technology.