4 ms·

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 b

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
  - b3morales 5y ago
    Sure, but those videos were taken deliberately for purpose A: to establish a public record of something related to official actions/accountability. I don't think they can be put under "random videographer".

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
- b3morales 5y ago
  Sure, but those videos were taken deliberately for purpose A: to establish a public record of something related to official actions/accountability. I don't think they can be put under "random videographer".