8 ms·

I’m willing to be swayed on this issue but to me the word “consent” implies permission, and the word permission implies some type of authority. In the case of p

I’m willing to be swayed on this issue but to me the word “consent” implies permission, and the word permission implies some type of authority. In the case of photography in public there is no authority so no consent is needed. I personally believe that, for the most part, ethics and legality align here. I don’t think it is unethical to photograph and publish a picture of someone in public. However, I think there may be an ethical dilemma if the picture is unintentionally sexually suggestive. I still don’t believe it should be legislated. The societal and personal benefits guaranteed by the right which allows us to photograph in public is worth more than the protection that would come through legislation. Additionally the picture in question is not sexual to me at all. I don’t even understand how anyone could construe it as sexual. To me it’s a raw, emotional photograph that perfectly describes what it’s like to mother children in a large city. It’s an amazing moment

golemotron 5y ago
Yes, the law is clear on this and case law evolved back when photography was expensive and relatively uncommon. People want to reconsider now that everyone has a camera all the time and it is very easy. This is a common pattern with tech.
- dsr_ 5y ago
  Nobody needed laws about automobiles before they were invented, and it took quite a few years before those laws became settled and close to universal. (E.g. every jurisdiction will require you to drive either on the left or the right side of the road, but they differ. Nearly all the world now uses red stop signs and lights.) Laws change in response to technological changes; this is normal. The spirit of a law is often more important than the wording, in deciding what changes to the law are appropriate.
  - scotty79 5y ago
    Don't forget that laws about automobiles were shaped by years of intense lobbying and shaping public opinion with campaigns, all financed by car companies.
kurthr 5y ago
I agree for figures in public places, but taking a years worth of pictures through a window (from a public place into a private place) is also protected by law (from the article). Is it OK to video/telephoto photograph from a rooftop through a window above the curtains into a shower of a naked person (over 18) and sell those on the internet along with the person's name and address? What about using deep IR to see through sheer curtains? Is it OK for the police to do the same with radar and sonar inside people's homes? How far do you have to go to have some expectation of privacy?
- sudobash1 5y ago
  According to the article, deep IR would be illegal: > Spying into someone's private space with specialized equipment or a drone is illegal.
  - kurthr 5y ago
    But a 50MP sensor, with tripod and 800mm telephoto... not specialized. At some point intent has to play a roll.
IgorPartola 5y ago
If I understand correctly, the reason why public photography is considered protected speech is because we want citizens to be able to capture public events of interest. That is, protests, riots, cops using excessive force, or more happy events like celebrations, etc. When it comes to someone taking photos in those situations I have no problem with it. However I really dislike the commercial street photographers as a concept. Basically instead of paying models to work for you, you go out to use random people as models and then sell your photos as art. That to me is exploitation. I understand that legally speaking it would be incredibly hard to separate the two types of street photography so it must all remain legal, but at the same time I strongly dislike the latter category, especially for the photogs who act like entitled assholes about it.
- GauntletWizard 5y ago
  "Public events of interest" is but one of many arguments, and your concern - Of being photographed on the street- Is in opposition to one of the other strongest arguments, that photography, even of random passers-by, is a form of art. That capturing life around you and the sights of your life are worth remembering. Quite frankly, I suggest you take your argument to some frozen icy wastes.
  - IgorPartola 5y ago
    I am honestly not sure what I just read, why it was written, or what it’s trying to say.
  - ternaryoperator 5y ago
    Here, the trouble with HN up/down votes. I agree with the first part, but disagree with the snarky comment at the end.
- igornadj 5y ago
  The difference between a model and a random stranger is night and day. The reason the model gets paid is because they are professional and contribute roughly equally to the process. With [good] street photography, it's almost entirely the story that is told that brings the value, the subject just happens to be living their relatively ordinary life.
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
> “consent” implies permission, and the word permission implies some type of authority. In the case of photography in public there is no authority so no consent is needed. The authority is over their own person. If I'm in public you don't get to touch grab my ass because "in the case of ass-grabbing in public there is no authority so no consent is needed." > However, I think there may be an ethical dilemma if the picture is unintentionally sexually suggestive. Think about why there's a dilemma. Can that same reasoning apply to other kinds of photos? And who should get to decide what's sufficiently suggestive? You or the subject?
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  Does my authority over my own person extend to denying you permission to transmit photons into my retina?
kayodelycaon 5y ago
> In the case of photography in public there is no authority so no consent is needed. In the US.

golemotron 5y ago

Yes, the law is clear on this and case law evolved back when photography was expensive and relatively uncommon. People want to reconsider now that everyone has a camera all the time and it is very easy. This is a common pattern with tech.

dsr_ 5y ago
Nobody needed laws about automobiles before they were invented, and it took quite a few years before those laws became settled and close to universal. (E.g. every jurisdiction will require you to drive either on the left or the right side of the road, but they differ. Nearly all the world now uses red stop signs and lights.) Laws change in response to technological changes; this is normal. The spirit of a law is often more important than the wording, in deciding what changes to the law are appropriate.
- scotty79 5y ago
  Don't forget that laws about automobiles were shaped by years of intense lobbying and shaping public opinion with campaigns, all financed by car companies.

kurthr 5y ago

I agree for figures in public places, but taking a years worth of pictures through a window (from a public place into a private place) is also protected by law (from the article). Is it OK to video/telephoto photograph from a rooftop through a window above the curtains into a shower of a naked person (over 18) and sell those on the internet along with the person's name and address? What about using deep IR to see through sheer curtains? Is it OK for the police to do the same with radar and sonar inside people's homes? How far do you have to go to have some expectation of privacy?

sudobash1 5y ago
According to the article, deep IR would be illegal: > Spying into someone's private space with specialized equipment or a drone is illegal.
- kurthr 5y ago
  But a 50MP sensor, with tripod and 800mm telephoto... not specialized. At some point intent has to play a roll.

IgorPartola 5y ago

If I understand correctly, the reason why public photography is considered protected speech is because we want citizens to be able to capture public events of interest. That is, protests, riots, cops using excessive force, or more happy events like celebrations, etc. When it comes to someone taking photos in those situations I have no problem with it. However I really dislike the commercial street photographers as a concept. Basically instead of paying models to work for you, you go out to use random people as models and then sell your photos as art. That to me is exploitation. I understand that legally speaking it would be incredibly hard to separate the two types of street photography so it must all remain legal, but at the same time I strongly dislike the latter category, especially for the photogs who act like entitled assholes about it.

GauntletWizard 5y ago
"Public events of interest" is but one of many arguments, and your concern - Of being photographed on the street- Is in opposition to one of the other strongest arguments, that photography, even of random passers-by, is a form of art. That capturing life around you and the sights of your life are worth remembering. Quite frankly, I suggest you take your argument to some frozen icy wastes.
- IgorPartola 5y ago
  I am honestly not sure what I just read, why it was written, or what it’s trying to say.
- ternaryoperator 5y ago
  Here, the trouble with HN up/down votes. I agree with the first part, but disagree with the snarky comment at the end.
igornadj 5y ago
The difference between a model and a random stranger is night and day. The reason the model gets paid is because they are professional and contribute roughly equally to the process. With [good] street photography, it's almost entirely the story that is told that brings the value, the subject just happens to be living their relatively ordinary life.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

> “consent” implies permission, and the word permission implies some type of authority. In the case of photography in public there is no authority so no consent is needed. The authority is over their own person. If I'm in public you don't get to touch grab my ass because "in the case of ass-grabbing in public there is no authority so no consent is needed." > However, I think there may be an ethical dilemma if the picture is unintentionally sexually suggestive. Think about why there's a dilemma. Can that same reasoning apply to other kinds of photos? And who should get to decide what's sufficiently suggestive? You or the subject?

oh_sigh 5y ago
Does my authority over my own person extend to denying you permission to transmit photons into my retina?

kayodelycaon 5y ago

> In the case of photography in public there is no authority so no consent is needed. In the US.