3 ms·

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 mor

by 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?

jMyles 8y ago
No. I have to believe that you are being intentionally obtuse. You are essentially taking the position that anywhere you go, I am suddenly not permitted to photograph that place without your specific consent. This is the obvious position of tyrants. Its what every corrupt or brutal police officer says to us when we use cameras for defense. Then, you are taking the position that somehow, your position is actually a bulwark against dystopia. I don't make a distinction, for the purposes of my basic, fundamental human rights (such as to the fruits of my vision, including journalism) between photons and photos. I am unable to understand any consistent way to apply your position that doesn't include a claim that the literal, physical particles that bounce off or you and into my sensor are somehow your property. This is just an absurd position on its face. I don't know why I'm still arguing with you. Fortunately, we live in a physical world and you are unable to interrupt the basic principles of physical reality, including the fact that photos come into my position regardless of your "consent". Thus, I'll just take your photo, I won't ask consent, and we'll all live with that.
mirimir 8y ago
> You[r] brain does not have a print function. If you've been trained to draw or paint, it certainly does. So is it morally wrong to draw or paint without consent? I do tend to agree with you, if we're talking about surveillance of the weak in the panopticon. But if we're talking about surveillance of the powerful, in the course of protecting human rights generally, I'd say that anything goes.

by cf498 8y ago

jMyles 8y ago

No. I have to believe that you are being intentionally obtuse. You are essentially taking the position that anywhere you go, I am suddenly not permitted to photograph that place without your specific consent. This is the obvious position of tyrants. Its what every corrupt or brutal police officer says to us when we use cameras for defense. Then, you are taking the position that somehow, your position is actually a bulwark against dystopia. I don't make a distinction, for the purposes of my basic, fundamental human rights (such as to the fruits of my vision, including journalism) between photons and photos. I am unable to understand any consistent way to apply your position that doesn't include a claim that the literal, physical particles that bounce off or you and into my sensor are somehow your property. This is just an absurd position on its face. I don't know why I'm still arguing with you. Fortunately, we live in a physical world and you are unable to interrupt the basic principles of physical reality, including the fact that photos come into my position regardless of your "consent". Thus, I'll just take your photo, I won't ask consent, and we'll all live with that.

mirimir 8y ago

> You[r] brain does not have a print function. If you've been trained to draw or paint, it certainly does. So is it morally wrong to draw or paint without consent? I do tend to agree with you, if we're talking about surveillance of the weak in the panopticon. But if we're talking about surveillance of the powerful, in the course of protecting human rights generally, I'd say that anything goes.