6 ms·

While people are constantly under surveillance of street cameras. While people are constantly under surveillance by their own phones and all kinds of apps. Wh

While people are constantly under surveillance of street cameras. While people are constantly under surveillance by their own phones and all kinds of apps. While people are constantly under surveillance during any internet activity . While most people agree to have computers that are not completely open which means no complete inspection of firmware and software including OS which means zero privacy by definition. While most people gladly give up any privacy for big corporations and store in their clouds what ever one can imagine . The same people seriously discuss if it is ok for photographer standing openly in the street to take some pictures? I should check the dictionary for definition of insanity because it can help to describe the situation. How about freedom of art expression? What have happened with respecting that? Isn't it a right of any person to see the world they way this person perceive it and express it in any art form including photography? Isn't the alternative is toward oppressive society? Would people disrespecting street photography prefer to live in oppressive society where all art is under complete control? Or they mean all art can be free except photography? Well also except drawing because who knows what one would draw. And songs because who knows what one could sing about. And sculpture. And movies. And computer games. And books. And music creating wrong emotions. And dancing which should be proper. And may Web sites. And well with current tools of surveillance ... anything is fine except 'wrong' dreaming?

hkon 5y ago
I have a feeling the people who will confront a photographer taking their picture, will be very quick on the draw to film the whole ordeal with their own camera. Regardless of consents.
- SMAAART 5y ago
  Of course! It's the "Do as I say, not as I do" Doctrine aka "Rules apply to everyone else but me".
asiachick 5y ago
I have a similar reaction to people that hate Google Glass, Spectacles by Snap, Ray-Ban Stories etc...
aaroninsf 5y ago
This is the best comment I've read on HN in a good while. Photography and consent here appear to be a logical example of what Umberto Eco called the hyper-real, the thing that is a supersaturated version of itself which draws the eye, thereby distracting from the ubiquity of the more discreet (yet totalizing) examples of the same thing in the environment–usually serving the interests of accumulated power. The shadow side of the McGuffin, with an operational adaptation: by being visible, they reassure the viewer of their ability to discern and mark their presence... and the viewer with false confidence overlooks the more pertinent examples everywhere else. Versions of this bait-and-distract are everywhere in contemporary discourse. This is now a stock tactic of rhetoricians and demagogues, and there are dozen variations on it.
- lovelyviking 5y ago
  Thank you very much for your kind words. And there are two mentioned people to explore. Thank you for that too. I just love exploring smart people.Can't get enough of it since I have no direct access to such people around me. And it is those mentions that encourage people to do so. I have discovered most amazing things for myself thanks to such mentions.
V__ 5y ago
I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. This sound like whataboutism to me. First, most people just don't know how much they are under surveillance, and it's not like the pushback against this data gathering isn't already there. Especially in Europe. Second, the chance of the data, which is collected on you, to be seen by thousands (or maybe millions) of people is pretty small. Even in a case of a data breach, you will be drowned out in millions of datasets (Except if you're a vip). A photography which can easily be shared may ruin your life. Those two aren't really comparable. I think a discussion is therefore warranted.
anigbrowl 5y ago
The same people seriously discuss if it is ok for photographer standing openly in the street to take some pictures? I should check the dictionary for definition of insanity because it can help to describe the situation. You could consider the possibility that debates over this are a proxy issue for discomfort with surveillance in general, as a camera with a person behind it is easier to talk about than a camera erected and operated by some anonymous corporation or government department. Meeting people where they are to consider the issue from their perspective is often more effective than performative rudeness.
- echelon 5y ago
  From the article, > The people who get the most worked up over the ethics of certain images are NOT themselves the subjects of the photo. This is outrage culture. People want to be angry. Here's something more for them to dogpile onto. Delivered by the Internet and amplified by engagement and sentiment detection algorithms. We're fucking animals screaming about events we never witness, experiences we never feel, and people we never meet. We need to be angry to satisfy all of the issues and perceived lack of power in our own lives.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
    I feel very strongly about this because facebook is trying to get everyone to wear sunglasses that can surreptitiously put my picture online and TFA is trying to tell everyone that it's fine. I'm not in any art galleries TFA is talking about, sure, and you're telling me that means I can't speak up? Or that commenting means I'm a "fucking animal?"
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      Facebook's push is the least of your concerns, honestly. Mass-surveillance is an industry-wide effort, driven by government pressure.
      - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
The other commenter is right to call your comment performative rudeness. You're acting like it's insane that the boiled frog is complaining about the water temperature. Meanwhile facebook just released sunglasses that can surreptitiously record everyone everywhere.
- lovelyviking 5y ago
  I merely bring attention back to the real issue: surveillance. Some times you need to deliver the truth to the 'boiling frog'. I would not call it rudeness though especially in comparison to what 'boiling frog' does to photographers. I was literally threatened by a man with the dog ready to attack for making test video shots of different color modes in the center of the city in the public space. I was directing my camera to the ... well to the bush. Intentionally away from the people walking on the paved road. Intentionally not directing my camera to any property. Just a public bush growing in the public bush. Did it help? No! There was literally no one alive in the shots except that very bush itself. No people around by the way. Just this one 'normal' man coming from behind or in your terminology 'boiled frog' that was ready to question me in the middle of the public street and was threatening me with his dog if I do not comply with his requests. So talk to me about rudeness. You may think it is one rare example? It is not. If you do street photography for some time you'll see many 'interesting' aggressive things directed toward you even by people who you intentionally avoided to put into the frame. At this stage if you prefer to name my small 'call for sanity' a rudeness I could not accept it, sorry. >You're acting like it's insane that the boiled frog is complaining about the water temperature. It is insane if 'boiled frog' is complaining about photography which has nothing to do with the real issue while 'boiled frog' should really complain about 'the water temperature' and many other things. >Meanwhile facebook just released sunglasses that can surreptitiously record everyone everywhere. Exactly my point. Direct complains where they belong and leave photographers alone. Let them do their hard job and keep society respectful toward freedom of artists. Without it society doomed to failure.
tiagod 5y ago
I live in a country where surveillance cameras can only be used, in most cases, to investigate crimes. (although the government is trying hard to change this, lately). Photography of public space is allowed, but if the subject is a specific person, you must obtain permission. This also leaves an awkward gray area for things like dashcams, which can be considered unregistered surveillance cameras and as such are not allowed.
- lovelyviking 5y ago
  >Photography of public space is allowed, but if the subject is a specific person, you must obtain permission. Sorry but then it is called 'Not allowed' If you need to ask any permission. By the way it seems that it never occur to those people who adapted such laws to ask the basic question : Why right for artistic expression should be 'allowed' by them? Who are they to allow other person to perceive the world in a certain way and express it in some artistic form or another? The freedom of speech and freedom of artistic expression as part of it can and should be protected if society wish to flourish and be free. The nature of the right suggests that no majority or authority can take away your right. >I live in a country where surveillance cameras can only be used, in most cases, to investigate crimes. (although the government is trying hard to change this, lately). I especially loved this part : "in most cases" If this country is full of people who cannot respect artistic freedom It would be foolish for the gov. not to abuse them further. This is exactly what you pay when you disrespect artists. No surprise there. You pay with your own freedom and you sacrifice freedom of the society itself. Is that is such a difficult concept to grasp in your country? By the way in one such country or presumably this very country I was almost attacked even for walking with camera. No pictures where taken at all. Talk to me about 'allowed'... In Germany turns out people think that they are entitled to posses pictures they never made. They think it's their pictures failing to understand that it's never them on pictures it is what artist see in them or about them on artist's picture. When fools starting to dominate and take freedom of artist to express himself the payment will come and it will be much much worse then arguably such a little discomfort of someone taking picture with you on it.
diebeforei485 5y ago
There's a difference between surveillance cameras (whose footage is not distributed publicly unless it is footage of a crime taking place) and photographers who sell this work for profit.
- beezle 5y ago
  I wouldn't make that assumption at all. First, not all cameras are public and second, what makes you think people with access can be trusted?
  - diebeforei485 5y ago
    It's not so much trust as incentive. I have a camera at my door, facing the street, but I have no reason to give anyone footage unless I get a request for a specific timeframe from someone trustworthy (eg. a known neighbor, or the cops)
    - lovelyviking 5y ago
      so you are spying over your neighbors and report about them too? ... I do not think so but such kind of attitude photographers experience too frequently when they are trying to do their job. You can check this story from my experience: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29339707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29339707 and another one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29342547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29342547
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

hkon 5y ago

I have a feeling the people who will confront a photographer taking their picture, will be very quick on the draw to film the whole ordeal with their own camera. Regardless of consents.

SMAAART 5y ago
Of course! It's the "Do as I say, not as I do" Doctrine aka "Rules apply to everyone else but me".

asiachick 5y ago

I have a similar reaction to people that hate Google Glass, Spectacles by Snap, Ray-Ban Stories etc...

aaroninsf 5y ago

This is the best comment I've read on HN in a good while. Photography and consent here appear to be a logical example of what Umberto Eco called the hyper-real, the thing that is a supersaturated version of itself which draws the eye, thereby distracting from the ubiquity of the more discreet (yet totalizing) examples of the same thing in the environment–usually serving the interests of accumulated power. The shadow side of the McGuffin, with an operational adaptation: by being visible, they reassure the viewer of their ability to discern and mark their presence... and the viewer with false confidence overlooks the more pertinent examples everywhere else. Versions of this bait-and-distract are everywhere in contemporary discourse. This is now a stock tactic of rhetoricians and demagogues, and there are dozen variations on it.

lovelyviking 5y ago
Thank you very much for your kind words. And there are two mentioned people to explore. Thank you for that too. I just love exploring smart people.Can't get enough of it since I have no direct access to such people around me. And it is those mentions that encourage people to do so. I have discovered most amazing things for myself thanks to such mentions.

V__ 5y ago

I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. This sound like whataboutism to me. First, most people just don't know how much they are under surveillance, and it's not like the pushback against this data gathering isn't already there. Especially in Europe. Second, the chance of the data, which is collected on you, to be seen by thousands (or maybe millions) of people is pretty small. Even in a case of a data breach, you will be drowned out in millions of datasets (Except if you're a vip). A photography which can easily be shared may ruin your life. Those two aren't really comparable. I think a discussion is therefore warranted.

anigbrowl 5y ago

The same people seriously discuss if it is ok for photographer standing openly in the street to take some pictures? I should check the dictionary for definition of insanity because it can help to describe the situation. You could consider the possibility that debates over this are a proxy issue for discomfort with surveillance in general, as a camera with a person behind it is easier to talk about than a camera erected and operated by some anonymous corporation or government department. Meeting people where they are to consider the issue from their perspective is often more effective than performative rudeness.

echelon 5y ago
From the article, > The people who get the most worked up over the ethics of certain images are NOT themselves the subjects of the photo. This is outrage culture. People want to be angry. Here's something more for them to dogpile onto. Delivered by the Internet and amplified by engagement and sentiment detection algorithms. We're fucking animals screaming about events we never witness, experiences we never feel, and people we never meet. We need to be angry to satisfy all of the issues and perceived lack of power in our own lives.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  I feel very strongly about this because facebook is trying to get everyone to wear sunglasses that can surreptitiously put my picture online and TFA is trying to tell everyone that it's fine. I'm not in any art galleries TFA is talking about, sure, and you're telling me that means I can't speak up? Or that commenting means I'm a "fucking animal?"
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    Facebook's push is the least of your concerns, honestly. Mass-surveillance is an industry-wide effort, driven by government pressure.
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

The other commenter is right to call your comment performative rudeness. You're acting like it's insane that the boiled frog is complaining about the water temperature. Meanwhile facebook just released sunglasses that can surreptitiously record everyone everywhere.

lovelyviking 5y ago
I merely bring attention back to the real issue: surveillance. Some times you need to deliver the truth to the 'boiling frog'. I would not call it rudeness though especially in comparison to what 'boiling frog' does to photographers. I was literally threatened by a man with the dog ready to attack for making test video shots of different color modes in the center of the city in the public space. I was directing my camera to the ... well to the bush. Intentionally away from the people walking on the paved road. Intentionally not directing my camera to any property. Just a public bush growing in the public bush. Did it help? No! There was literally no one alive in the shots except that very bush itself. No people around by the way. Just this one 'normal' man coming from behind or in your terminology 'boiled frog' that was ready to question me in the middle of the public street and was threatening me with his dog if I do not comply with his requests. So talk to me about rudeness. You may think it is one rare example? It is not. If you do street photography for some time you'll see many 'interesting' aggressive things directed toward you even by people who you intentionally avoided to put into the frame. At this stage if you prefer to name my small 'call for sanity' a rudeness I could not accept it, sorry. >You're acting like it's insane that the boiled frog is complaining about the water temperature. It is insane if 'boiled frog' is complaining about photography which has nothing to do with the real issue while 'boiled frog' should really complain about 'the water temperature' and many other things. >Meanwhile facebook just released sunglasses that can surreptitiously record everyone everywhere. Exactly my point. Direct complains where they belong and leave photographers alone. Let them do their hard job and keep society respectful toward freedom of artists. Without it society doomed to failure.

tiagod 5y ago

I live in a country where surveillance cameras can only be used, in most cases, to investigate crimes. (although the government is trying hard to change this, lately). Photography of public space is allowed, but if the subject is a specific person, you must obtain permission. This also leaves an awkward gray area for things like dashcams, which can be considered unregistered surveillance cameras and as such are not allowed.

lovelyviking 5y ago
>Photography of public space is allowed, but if the subject is a specific person, you must obtain permission. Sorry but then it is called 'Not allowed' If you need to ask any permission. By the way it seems that it never occur to those people who adapted such laws to ask the basic question : Why right for artistic expression should be 'allowed' by them? Who are they to allow other person to perceive the world in a certain way and express it in some artistic form or another? The freedom of speech and freedom of artistic expression as part of it can and should be protected if society wish to flourish and be free. The nature of the right suggests that no majority or authority can take away your right. >I live in a country where surveillance cameras can only be used, in most cases, to investigate crimes. (although the government is trying hard to change this, lately). I especially loved this part : "in most cases" If this country is full of people who cannot respect artistic freedom It would be foolish for the gov. not to abuse them further. This is exactly what you pay when you disrespect artists. No surprise there. You pay with your own freedom and you sacrifice freedom of the society itself. Is that is such a difficult concept to grasp in your country? By the way in one such country or presumably this very country I was almost attacked even for walking with camera. No pictures where taken at all. Talk to me about 'allowed'... In Germany turns out people think that they are entitled to posses pictures they never made. They think it's their pictures failing to understand that it's never them on pictures it is what artist see in them or about them on artist's picture. When fools starting to dominate and take freedom of artist to express himself the payment will come and it will be much much worse then arguably such a little discomfort of someone taking picture with you on it.

diebeforei485 5y ago

There's a difference between surveillance cameras (whose footage is not distributed publicly unless it is footage of a crime taking place) and photographers who sell this work for profit.

beezle 5y ago
I wouldn't make that assumption at all. First, not all cameras are public and second, what makes you think people with access can be trusted?
- diebeforei485 5y ago
  It's not so much trust as incentive. I have a camera at my door, facing the street, but I have no reason to give anyone footage unless I get a request for a specific timeframe from someone trustworthy (eg. a known neighbor, or the cops)
  - lovelyviking 5y ago
    so you are spying over your neighbors and report about them too? ... I do not think so but such kind of attitude photographers experience too frequently when they are trying to do their job. You can check this story from my experience: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29339707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29339707 and another one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29342547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29342547

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]