5 ms·
> This limit would eventually need to be expanded, because I wouldn't want my photographs to be examined like this in 70 years time. Wait, why are you fine wit
by GuiA 8y ago
> This limit would eventually need to be expanded, because I wouldn't want my photographs to be examined like this in 70 years time.
Wait, why are you fine with doing it with other people’s 70 year old pictures, but you don’t want people 70 years from now to do it with your pictures?
(sorry if I am missing the sarcasm or some such)
- Brockenstein 8y agoFortunately, when you're dead the living will do whatever they want and you're too dead to care.
- mirceal 8y agoI will disagree. Being alive or dead should not impact what others can do as far as your privacy goes. I would also extend this to any technology available in the future. Facial recognition is interesting, but let’s think about more advanced biological things that could be available in 50-100 years.
- mulmen 8y agoThat’s pretty short sighted. Do you take that view of everything that can happen after you die? Should terminal patients still vote?
- lostapathy 8y agoIt could be argued rights are something a person has. Once you die, you are no longer a person. Dead people don't have a right to vote. I think a much stronger argument is to be made that your surviving family/friends have a right to privacy that somehow includes aspects of deceased relatives lives staying secret. But that makes it a right for the living, not the dead.
- mulmen 8y agoWhile I disagree with the idea that the dead have no rights I do understand it. Even if we accept that I still think it is short sighted for the living to only consider consequences up to their own death and not beyond.
- mesozoic 8y agoVoting is pointless anyway so let them have a go
- mulmen 8y agoDo you really believe that? I’m not suggesting the dead should vote. I’m saying the living consider the consequences of their vote even if they don’t think they will live to see it.
- mosselman 8y agoNo sarcasm and I know it sounds dubious, but these are my thoughts: - live expectancy has gone up, so in 70 years it will be more likely that I am still alive - there are and will be a lot more photographs of me than of the average person in the 1940s, probably in the thousands of times more, so the impact on my privacy of studying all my photographs is far greater than it would be for the off picture of someone in the 40s. "Here he is, dressed up, at his wedding and 10 years earlier as a child" vs "Here is a map with all the places where mosselman was seen with a social graph of all the people he was ever seen with"
- pavel_lishin 8y agoI don't want Mickey Mouse to stay copyrighted forever, and I don't want your - and by extension, my - right to privacy to extend too much further past my death.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mosselman 8y agoWhat 'too much' would mean is the question though. Even my original specification of 70 years might, in some cases, be too short a time. Take the holocaust for example: The nazis used privacy sensitive information like notes from jewish church meetings to find people to deport to concentration camps. So let's say that Apple, on who's servers I store my photographs, may release my images to the public once I die (assuming they can). What if there is some other totalitarian regime by then that will use those images to create a profile of me. They can then use that profile to by extension profile my children or other relatives and use that information to harm them. So I don't really agree with the no-privacy beyond death story. Since maybe you have to say that the privacy rights of my data will be passed on to my children or others who are still alive that I've had relationships with of any kind. The images in this article are probably far enough back not to be of much importance though, but maybe my idea to make a bigger study ranging to WWII was maybe a bad one with regards to privacy issues of the people in the pictures and the privacy of their relatives.