3 ms·

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

by 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.
- cf498 8y ago
  You are responding to the wrong post. I was strictly talking about my parent post.
  - jMyles 8y ago
    I (author of that comment) responded also, and you haven't answered. To put it differently: what gives you the right to disrupt my vision anywhere you go? Am I supposed to try to blur my memories of you? If I am able to, from biologically recorded memory, recreate a perfect image of you, do you regard me biological brain as criminal? Most importantly: what makes you think that you own particles that bounce off of your skin? This seems like the maximum bound for egotism in a physical universe. Does this apply to all particles in your model? Or just photons?

by cf498 8y ago

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.

cf498 8y ago
You are responding to the wrong post. I was strictly talking about my parent post.
- jMyles 8y ago
  I (author of that comment) responded also, and you haven't answered. To put it differently: what gives you the right to disrupt my vision anywhere you go? Am I supposed to try to blur my memories of you? If I am able to, from biologically recorded memory, recreate a perfect image of you, do you regard me biological brain as criminal? Most importantly: what makes you think that you own particles that bounce off of your skin? This seems like the maximum bound for egotism in a physical universe. Does this apply to all particles in your model? Or just photons?