6 ms·

I always found this issue to be confusing. There are literally hundreds of cameras tracking me every day: in the parking lot, in front of the ATM, when I buy my

I always found this issue to be confusing. There are literally hundreds of cameras tracking me every day: in the parking lot, in front of the ATM, when I buy my groceries… I have no ability to know when I’m being recorded or what happens to those recordings. Yet some people are upset if they get photographed by a human photographer in a public space. Is the only difference that the photo was taken with intent?

criddell 5y ago
Is intent just another way of distinguishing between active and passive recording?
Tomte 5y ago
CCTV footage doesn't go viral, and my social circle won't see it. I find it hard to understand that people in this thread see no problem there. You can still believe that photographers should have every right to take photos (and legally they do, so there's nothing to discuss about the status quo), but you need to address this point, even if only by summarily dismissing it.
- colanderman 5y ago
  YouTube is full of "look what my Ring camera recorded" videos.
- petepete 5y ago
  > CCTV footage doesn't go viral Unless you trip over, get mugged or your pants fall down.
  - underwater 5y ago
    That feels like it's just looping around to the same problem. If you use an image or video of a other person for ridicule or profit, and it is likely to bring them unwanted attention, that is exploitation of that person. In my opinion it's ethically wrong.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > CCTV footage doesn't go viral, and my social circle won't see it. It's available to LEO - and they come with a history of leveraging surveillance in ways that profoundly damage lives.
- shikoba 5y ago
  >and legally they do It depends of the country.
- kolanos 5y ago
  > CCTV footage doesn't go viral, and my social circle won't see it. It absolutely can and has. Such as if the CCTV captured footage of a crime or a suspect of a crime. Additionally, if the CCTV is government controlled, it is subject to freedom of information laws (FOIA), which means anyone can get a copy of the footage for any reason and use it for any purpose. It is in effect public domain.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Being willing to accept risk that if crime happens at the same place, the CCTV might go viral still can dislike idea of photographer making I intentional photo of him and make it viral. Those are very different situations. Your second point does not address comment you respond to.
- rocqua 5y ago
  What situations of a photo going viral do you consider bad enough to consider blanket banning? Are those nit already illegal as libel or whatever it is that makes upskirt photos illegal?
  - Tomte 5y ago
    I haven't said a single word about making anything illegal. I simply point out that people have every right to feel uncomfortable with being photographed by strangers. And all "I don't mind" won't change that many people do mind.
arprocter 5y ago
Seems to me the objections come from assuming bad intent of the photographer A little apples to oranges, but I get the feeling the same folks who are against being photographed in public are probably pro police bodycams And how far and widely do they apply this? Sailor kiss in Times Sq comes to mind. Shots of the crowd at a sporting event? And then there's war photography...
- monocasa 5y ago
  As an aside, the times square kiss is kind of messed up. They didn't know each other, and the woman didn't want the kiss. It's kind of weird that such an iconic image of celebration here is an image of sexual assault.
  - arprocter 5y ago
    Yikes. It was just the first 'candid historic photo' that I thought of
- b3morales 5y ago
  > A little apples to oranges, but I get the feeling the same folks who are against being photographed in public are probably pro police bodycams The reasoning is not contradictory as you imply at the end; it is indeed apples and oranges. The "pro police bodycam" position is for capturing the actions of the person wearing it, protecting the camera's subject by adding accountability. The point is for the recording to be available as a public record in case of a problem, not for the officer to be able to use it. A random videographer on the street does not have anything like the same relationship with their captured subjects, and is probably not making a record that is positive for the recorded person (or the public). And that's to say nothing of private surveillance cameras; the difference there should be obvious.
  - arprocter 5y ago
    Like most things it's a double-edged sword - would the protests last year have happened without publicly shot video of the Floyd incident? Impossible to say yes or no, but it definitely seemed pivotal
bambax 5y ago
I am strongly in favor of the right to photograph anything and anybody in public places, but from a moral/ethical/legal point of view, "intent" is indeed everything. You make it sound like it would be secondary and not really relevant, but for example, intent is the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter. In candid street photography, I think what people fear is exactly that: bad intent, a willingness of the photographer to exploit the images in order to show ridicule or maybe even obtain sexual gratification. And it's also an easy way to do some virtue signalling. It's striking that in the article, it's not the people being photographed who object, but complete strangers to the scene, who know absolutely nothing about the specific circumstances of how the image was taken and whether or not consent was granted. Of course, intent lies not just in the pressing of a shutter; one can also select stills from security footage with intent to ridicule. And indeed, as a general rule, access to security footage is limited and controlled, probably for that reason.
- sam0x17 5y ago
  > In candid street photography, I think what people fear is exactly that: bad intent, a willingness of the photographer to exploit the images in order to show ridicule or maybe even obtain sexual gratification. That cuts both ways though -- I would be much more worried about the "intent" of someone looking up my face in particular and/or storing a database of millions of face-recognized surveillance videos than any possible malintent a human photographer could have. The former has much more potential for sinister outcomes originating from sinister intents.
  - b3morales 5y ago
    > storing a database of millions ... any possible malintent a human photographer could have Then again, as a sibling comment pointed out, there's a decent chance these days that the individual human photographer casually puts the image of your face into Facebook/Instagram(/Google?)'s database.
mannykannot 5y ago
One should not assume that those who are not keen on being photographed in public are unconcerned by the high level if institutional snooping, or that they have always felt this way. What has changed is the environment. Until relatively recently, there was comparatively little institutional snooping going on, and most of that was not disseminated: for the most part, it stayed where it was taken for a couple of weeks, then the tapes were overwritten. These days, it is likely to last forever, and make its way into the hands of those companies that have made it their business to find out everything about us. Similarly, when someone takes a snapshot on the street, it is very likely to be sucked up into the cloud. Even though I have no account with Facebook, I have little doubt that it can recognize me in the background of other people's pictures, and has a file on my whereabouts and activities. Therefore, the issue is not the taking of the pictures per se, but the use they are put to by third parties. While I do not spend much time worrying about what could happen as a consequence, I sure do not like it, and I don't think I should have to justify that dislike.
watwut 5y ago
People who objects to being photographed in public object to those photos being put on internet or journals. Generally, the security camera pictures won't be published. Where they are published, they are still so boring that no one looks at them.
karaterobot 5y ago
Is it so unbelievable? You listed hidden cameras. When you don't see a camera, and don't know you're being recorded, you don't object to it as strenuously as when a stranger points a camera at you. Even if you remember reading somewhere that cameras are in the store, you can easily forget that because you don't see them. Instead, imagine if grocery stores had employees follow customers around recording with cameras while they were in the store, and on the way back to their cars: would you expect more complaints, or the same amount?
- b3morales 5y ago
  It's a very good point. This whole debate is semi-consciously influenced by an semi-conscious quirk of our human brains: watching for apparent agency in the world and ascribing more weight to things that seem to have it.
abeppu 5y ago
I don't think the issue is solely intent at the time the photo is taken. If I put up a CCTV camera in my brick and mortar business with the intent of having security footage in the event of a crime, but I subsequently review the footage, take some stills I think are funny, and put them on social media to build and entertain an audience, then I have pulled a kind of bait-and-switch. If people in or near my business reasonably assumed that the footage would be used specifically for security purposes, and are OK with being filmed for such a purpose, they may justifiably feel deceived. I can be on-board with the arrangement that "You're on camera. We'll see you if you shoplift. But hopefully you're in a store where others are also weakly dissuaded away from shoplifting." I might choose not to frequent a business where the deal is "Don't shoplift. But also, if you trip and fall maybe we'll cut a clip of you for the internet to laugh at."
jerry1979 5y ago
Part of the issue is that modern cameras are very high definition. For example, they can capture your skin in detail which is unnerving. They can also capture what you are reading which means that they dance very closely to the idea of recording audio in public without consent. This could be especially bad if the photographer captures images of communications used by people with disabilities such as braille or signs. A third issue could be having your photograph taken while doing something private in public such as pooping in the woods.
- nativeit 5y ago
  Recording audio in public is also legal in the US, I'm not sure why the analog for persons with disabilities would make any difference? Under US law, there is not presumption of privacy in public spaces, and therefore citizens have no rights to privacy while in public spaces. If someone is concerned enough about this, they are free to wear masks and communicate in code.
- nativeit 5y ago
  In the US anyway, pooping in the woods would be a violation of decency laws and if convicted would label the pooper as a sex offender.

criddell 5y ago

Is intent just another way of distinguishing between active and passive recording?

Tomte 5y ago

CCTV footage doesn't go viral, and my social circle won't see it. I find it hard to understand that people in this thread see no problem there. You can still believe that photographers should have every right to take photos (and legally they do, so there's nothing to discuss about the status quo), but you need to address this point, even if only by summarily dismissing it.

colanderman 5y ago
YouTube is full of "look what my Ring camera recorded" videos.
petepete 5y ago
> CCTV footage doesn't go viral Unless you trip over, get mugged or your pants fall down.
- underwater 5y ago
  That feels like it's just looping around to the same problem. If you use an image or video of a other person for ridicule or profit, and it is likely to bring them unwanted attention, that is exploitation of that person. In my opinion it's ethically wrong.
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> CCTV footage doesn't go viral, and my social circle won't see it. It's available to LEO - and they come with a history of leveraging surveillance in ways that profoundly damage lives.
shikoba 5y ago
>and legally they do It depends of the country.
kolanos 5y ago
> CCTV footage doesn't go viral, and my social circle won't see it. It absolutely can and has. Such as if the CCTV captured footage of a crime or a suspect of a crime. Additionally, if the CCTV is government controlled, it is subject to freedom of information laws (FOIA), which means anyone can get a copy of the footage for any reason and use it for any purpose. It is in effect public domain.
- watwut 5y ago
  Being willing to accept risk that if crime happens at the same place, the CCTV might go viral still can dislike idea of photographer making I intentional photo of him and make it viral. Those are very different situations. Your second point does not address comment you respond to.
rocqua 5y ago
What situations of a photo going viral do you consider bad enough to consider blanket banning? Are those nit already illegal as libel or whatever it is that makes upskirt photos illegal?
- Tomte 5y ago
  I haven't said a single word about making anything illegal. I simply point out that people have every right to feel uncomfortable with being photographed by strangers. And all "I don't mind" won't change that many people do mind.

arprocter 5y ago

Seems to me the objections come from assuming bad intent of the photographer A little apples to oranges, but I get the feeling the same folks who are against being photographed in public are probably pro police bodycams And how far and widely do they apply this? Sailor kiss in Times Sq comes to mind. Shots of the crowd at a sporting event? And then there's war photography...

monocasa 5y ago
As an aside, the times square kiss is kind of messed up. They didn't know each other, and the woman didn't want the kiss. It's kind of weird that such an iconic image of celebration here is an image of sexual assault.
- arprocter 5y ago
  Yikes. It was just the first 'candid historic photo' that I thought of
b3morales 5y ago
> A little apples to oranges, but I get the feeling the same folks who are against being photographed in public are probably pro police bodycams The reasoning is not contradictory as you imply at the end; it is indeed apples and oranges. The "pro police bodycam" position is for capturing the actions of the person wearing it, protecting the camera's subject by adding accountability. The point is for the recording to be available as a public record in case of a problem, not for the officer to be able to use it. A random videographer on the street does not have anything like the same relationship with their captured subjects, and is probably not making a record that is positive for the recorded person (or the public). And that's to say nothing of private surveillance cameras; the difference there should be obvious.
- arprocter 5y ago
  Like most things it's a double-edged sword - would the protests last year have happened without publicly shot video of the Floyd incident? Impossible to say yes or no, but it definitely seemed pivotal

bambax 5y ago

I am strongly in favor of the right to photograph anything and anybody in public places, but from a moral/ethical/legal point of view, "intent" is indeed everything. You make it sound like it would be secondary and not really relevant, but for example, intent is the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter. In candid street photography, I think what people fear is exactly that: bad intent, a willingness of the photographer to exploit the images in order to show ridicule or maybe even obtain sexual gratification. And it's also an easy way to do some virtue signalling. It's striking that in the article, it's not the people being photographed who object, but complete strangers to the scene, who know absolutely nothing about the specific circumstances of how the image was taken and whether or not consent was granted. Of course, intent lies not just in the pressing of a shutter; one can also select stills from security footage with intent to ridicule. And indeed, as a general rule, access to security footage is limited and controlled, probably for that reason.

sam0x17 5y ago
> In candid street photography, I think what people fear is exactly that: bad intent, a willingness of the photographer to exploit the images in order to show ridicule or maybe even obtain sexual gratification. That cuts both ways though -- I would be much more worried about the "intent" of someone looking up my face in particular and/or storing a database of millions of face-recognized surveillance videos than any possible malintent a human photographer could have. The former has much more potential for sinister outcomes originating from sinister intents.
- b3morales 5y ago
  > storing a database of millions ... any possible malintent a human photographer could have Then again, as a sibling comment pointed out, there's a decent chance these days that the individual human photographer casually puts the image of your face into Facebook/Instagram(/Google?)'s database.

mannykannot 5y ago

One should not assume that those who are not keen on being photographed in public are unconcerned by the high level if institutional snooping, or that they have always felt this way. What has changed is the environment. Until relatively recently, there was comparatively little institutional snooping going on, and most of that was not disseminated: for the most part, it stayed where it was taken for a couple of weeks, then the tapes were overwritten. These days, it is likely to last forever, and make its way into the hands of those companies that have made it their business to find out everything about us. Similarly, when someone takes a snapshot on the street, it is very likely to be sucked up into the cloud. Even though I have no account with Facebook, I have little doubt that it can recognize me in the background of other people's pictures, and has a file on my whereabouts and activities. Therefore, the issue is not the taking of the pictures per se, but the use they are put to by third parties. While I do not spend much time worrying about what could happen as a consequence, I sure do not like it, and I don't think I should have to justify that dislike.

watwut 5y ago

People who objects to being photographed in public object to those photos being put on internet or journals. Generally, the security camera pictures won't be published. Where they are published, they are still so boring that no one looks at them.

karaterobot 5y ago

Is it so unbelievable? You listed hidden cameras. When you don't see a camera, and don't know you're being recorded, you don't object to it as strenuously as when a stranger points a camera at you. Even if you remember reading somewhere that cameras are in the store, you can easily forget that because you don't see them. Instead, imagine if grocery stores had employees follow customers around recording with cameras while they were in the store, and on the way back to their cars: would you expect more complaints, or the same amount?

b3morales 5y ago
It's a very good point. This whole debate is semi-consciously influenced by an semi-conscious quirk of our human brains: watching for apparent agency in the world and ascribing more weight to things that seem to have it.

abeppu 5y ago

I don't think the issue is solely intent at the time the photo is taken. If I put up a CCTV camera in my brick and mortar business with the intent of having security footage in the event of a crime, but I subsequently review the footage, take some stills I think are funny, and put them on social media to build and entertain an audience, then I have pulled a kind of bait-and-switch. If people in or near my business reasonably assumed that the footage would be used specifically for security purposes, and are OK with being filmed for such a purpose, they may justifiably feel deceived. I can be on-board with the arrangement that "You're on camera. We'll see you if you shoplift. But hopefully you're in a store where others are also weakly dissuaded away from shoplifting." I might choose not to frequent a business where the deal is "Don't shoplift. But also, if you trip and fall maybe we'll cut a clip of you for the internet to laugh at."

jerry1979 5y ago

Part of the issue is that modern cameras are very high definition. For example, they can capture your skin in detail which is unnerving. They can also capture what you are reading which means that they dance very closely to the idea of recording audio in public without consent. This could be especially bad if the photographer captures images of communications used by people with disabilities such as braille or signs. A third issue could be having your photograph taken while doing something private in public such as pooping in the woods.

nativeit 5y ago
Recording audio in public is also legal in the US, I'm not sure why the analog for persons with disabilities would make any difference? Under US law, there is not presumption of privacy in public spaces, and therefore citizens have no rights to privacy while in public spaces. If someone is concerned enough about this, they are free to wear masks and communicate in code.
nativeit 5y ago
In the US anyway, pooping in the woods would be a violation of decency laws and if convicted would label the pooper as a sex offender.