5 ms·
That's just a reductionist stance and when you follow that line of thinking to its conclusion then it would mean being illegal to record anything outside of you
by Sargos 7y ago
That's just a reductionist stance and when you follow that line of thinking to its conclusion then it would mean being illegal to record anything outside of your own house which is ridiculous because people need to film their kids going to the beach or take selfies in the mall. The negative side effects of prohibiting public photography greatly outweigh the positives.
- kabwj 7y agoI disagree. I don’t give a fuck that you want to take a selfie. Don’t include me in it, period. I have a right not to be photographed. Of course... different strokes. That’s why different countries exist.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tgsovlerkhgsel 7y agoSee... and most countries that recognize a right to privacy even in public have found a way to let people film their kids, while still making it illegal to point a private surveillance camera onto a public area (be it from your window or a car). There is a difference between taking a picture of your kid with someone in the background, and intentionally taking a picture of that person. And turns out that in practice, the law is able to distinguish those two even though technically they're quite similar.