9 ms·

This work is unethical. Those people never approved for their privacy to be violated in such a flagrant way. Would you approve researchers from 100 years in th

by 21 8y ago

This work is unethical. Those people never approved for their privacy to be violated in such a flagrant way. Would you approve researchers from 100 years in the future using facial recognition to identify and shame meat-eating bastards from today, such as you or your friends, such that for example your work and legacy to be de-platformed?

jMyles 8y ago
Sarcasm? If so, it's very well done. If not: > Would you approve researchers from 100 years in the future using facial recognition to identify and shame meat-eating bastards from today, such as you or your friends, such that for example your work and legacy to be de-platformed? My approval has nothing to do with it. I don't own photons after they bounce off my face. And I don't own anything after I'm dead.
- cf498 8y ago
  >My approval has nothing to do with it. I don't own photons after they bounce off my face. They should not exist in the first place, except made by people who have my clear consent for that specific picture. And those would know the limitations on publishing them. Mass surveillance is a clear and apparent threat to society. The idea of a completely transparent human without any shred of privacy left is simply abhorrent. Hello 1984 edit: I read "Photos"
  - jMyles 8y ago
    You are trying to tell me that I can't take a picture of anything without the specific consent of every organism off of which every photon that enters my sensor most recently bounced? And you are calling my comment dystopic?! Do I need to walk around with my eyes closed also? Or simply agree not to remember you without your consent?
    - cf498 8y ago
      Photos. Of a sentient human being who dont want to be photographed https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/03/a-part-of-daily-life-south-korea-confronts-its-voyeurism-epidemic-sexual-harassment https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/03/a-part-of-dail... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/south-korea-spycam-porn-women-protest-voyeurism-invasion-of-privacy-a8477611.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/south-korea-sp... edit: or on non sexual voyeurists https://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/04/napalm_girl_was_haunted_by_the.html https://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/04/napalm_girl_was_haunte... >Phuc said the image haunted her for decades, as she struggled to come to terms with its shadow and legacy, the embarrassment and pain it conjured.
      - jMyles 8y ago
        Well I'm a sentiment human being too. And I was born with eyes (which capture light) and a brain (which stores photographic detail about that entering light). Additionally, I have many other hardware cameras in addition to the ones that I was born with. How can you possibly have a "right" to dictate what I do with the photons that come to me? How can you claim them? If they're your property, why did you let them drift into my sensory organs in the first place?
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - ghaff 8y ago
        Those stories are about a rather specific type of photo in situations that most people would reasonably consider to be private. If you really don't want to have a photo taken, in say a public park, I'm not sure what to say. Too bad.
      - krapp 8y ago
        How do you know the Civil War soldiers being discussed here didn't want to be photographed? I think one can safely assume consent was given for them to exist, considering the slow and complicated nature of photography at the time. It would be impossible to have any sort of historical record if all artifacts, including photos, were burned or disposed of after a person's death because they didn't leave explicit permissions for their use in the future. It's difficult to see how a right to privacy for persons a hundred years dead even exists, much less can be violated, in this case.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    No. At least in the US you have no rights to photos taken of you in a public place except for certain specific situations. For examples, photos used for commercial purposes (e.g. ads, marketing materials) in which you are clearly recognizable (not part of a crowd shot) require model releases. However if I take a photo of you on the street and publish it in a personal blog, article, etc. you basically have no recourse. If you hold your breath and turn purple, I might take it down to make you go away but I have no obligation to do so.
    - jMyles 8y ago
      I can't imagine how any place where freedom can prevail might go about telling you that you are required to avert your eyes on the basis of someone not wanting to be seen. This seem like basic physics to me: if photons come to me, I can record them. Simple.
      - cf498 8y ago
        Photos. As in pictures. Physical copies. Your eyes dont have a log function. You can look at your partner during sex for certain, but secretly filming them and sharing the pictures is clearly wrong.
        jMyles 8y ago
        I suspect you are a troll. Of course my eyes have a log function. It's called my brain. And how that's relevant to the simple physical discussion of your claim to ownership of all particles with which you've ever come into contact is beyond me.
        cf498 8y ago
        I would normally not repsond that long, but your account is old enough to not be a troll. Do you really mean what you say here? I am talking about it being morally wrong to make pictures of you to share with someone else if you do not consent. You brain does not have a print function. Is this a misunderstanding because you still havent realized that I am not talking about photons but photos?

by 21 8y ago

jMyles 8y ago

Sarcasm? If so, it's very well done. If not: > Would you approve researchers from 100 years in the future using facial recognition to identify and shame meat-eating bastards from today, such as you or your friends, such that for example your work and legacy to be de-platformed? My approval has nothing to do with it. I don't own photons after they bounce off my face. And I don't own anything after I'm dead.

cf498 8y ago
>My approval has nothing to do with it. I don't own photons after they bounce off my face. They should not exist in the first place, except made by people who have my clear consent for that specific picture. And those would know the limitations on publishing them. Mass surveillance is a clear and apparent threat to society. The idea of a completely transparent human without any shred of privacy left is simply abhorrent. Hello 1984 edit: I read "Photos"
- jMyles 8y ago
  You are trying to tell me that I can't take a picture of anything without the specific consent of every organism off of which every photon that enters my sensor most recently bounced? And you are calling my comment dystopic?! Do I need to walk around with my eyes closed also? Or simply agree not to remember you without your consent?
  - cf498 8y ago
    Photos. Of a sentient human being who dont want to be photographed https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/03/a-part-of-daily-life-south-korea-confronts-its-voyeurism-epidemic-sexual-harassment https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/03/a-part-of-dail... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/south-korea-spycam-porn-women-protest-voyeurism-invasion-of-privacy-a8477611.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/south-korea-sp... edit: or on non sexual voyeurists https://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/04/napalm_girl_was_haunted_by_the.html https://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/04/napalm_girl_was_haunte... >Phuc said the image haunted her for decades, as she struggled to come to terms with its shadow and legacy, the embarrassment and pain it conjured.
    - jMyles 8y ago
      Well I'm a sentiment human being too. And I was born with eyes (which capture light) and a brain (which stores photographic detail about that entering light). Additionally, I have many other hardware cameras in addition to the ones that I was born with. How can you possibly have a "right" to dictate what I do with the photons that come to me? How can you claim them? If they're your property, why did you let them drift into my sensory organs in the first place?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - ghaff 8y ago
      Those stories are about a rather specific type of photo in situations that most people would reasonably consider to be private. If you really don't want to have a photo taken, in say a public park, I'm not sure what to say. Too bad.
    - krapp 8y ago
      How do you know the Civil War soldiers being discussed here didn't want to be photographed? I think one can safely assume consent was given for them to exist, considering the slow and complicated nature of photography at the time. It would be impossible to have any sort of historical record if all artifacts, including photos, were burned or disposed of after a person's death because they didn't leave explicit permissions for their use in the future. It's difficult to see how a right to privacy for persons a hundred years dead even exists, much less can be violated, in this case.
- ghaff 8y ago
  No. At least in the US you have no rights to photos taken of you in a public place except for certain specific situations. For examples, photos used for commercial purposes (e.g. ads, marketing materials) in which you are clearly recognizable (not part of a crowd shot) require model releases. However if I take a photo of you on the street and publish it in a personal blog, article, etc. you basically have no recourse. If you hold your breath and turn purple, I might take it down to make you go away but I have no obligation to do so.
  - jMyles 8y ago
    I can't imagine how any place where freedom can prevail might go about telling you that you are required to avert your eyes on the basis of someone not wanting to be seen. This seem like basic physics to me: if photons come to me, I can record them. Simple.
    - cf498 8y ago
      Photos. As in pictures. Physical copies. Your eyes dont have a log function. You can look at your partner during sex for certain, but secretly filming them and sharing the pictures is clearly wrong.
      - jMyles 8y ago
        I suspect you are a troll. Of course my eyes have a log function. It's called my brain. And how that's relevant to the simple physical discussion of your claim to ownership of all particles with which you've ever come into contact is beyond me.
        cf498 8y ago
        I would normally not repsond that long, but your account is old enough to not be a troll. Do you really mean what you say here? I am talking about it being morally wrong to make pictures of you to share with someone else if you do not consent. You brain does not have a print function. Is this a misunderstanding because you still havent realized that I am not talking about photons but photos?