6 ms·

This is an unpopular view but I think that photos of strangers in public are a vital illumination of humanity. You see in people's faces, in the moment, the dra

This is an unpopular view but I think that photos of strangers in public are a vital illumination of humanity. You see in people's faces, in the moment, the drama of excitement, love, apathy, boredom, anger - the full range of emotion and what it means to be a human in the world. Actors in movies or staged photos never give us that. They never glow in the way that a person in the street does who is surprised by a friend. Despite the take that these public photographs are "privacy" violations, I think they should be celebrated. Societally, we should get over ourselves a bit.

gjulianm 5y ago
> Despite the take that these public photographs are "privacy" violations, I think they should be celebrated I don't know why your enjoyment of a photo should take priority over the right to privacy of people. In a world where anything could become a meme overnight, I would very much prefer my image to not be tweeted publicly without my consent, specially by people with a large audience. If the photographer wants to portray those emotions, make the photo and ask later, and delete them if the person doesn't want to have a picture taken of. I understand that for most people the risks will outweigh the benefits.
- LocalH 5y ago
  It's not about "enjoyment". It's about documenting history in a very real and normal way. These are the photos that future historians will study. Would you rather them have a huge black hole because people decided "my privacy rights when I'm in public are more important than everything else", which I honestly see to be a more entitled viewpoint.
  - afthonos 5y ago
    I’m not sure “people not yet alive have a right to mundane details of your life” is the less entitled position, tbh. In their defense, they’re not the ones making that argument.
  - gjulianm 5y ago
    There is absolutely no lack of material of any kind to document this period of history. There will be no huge black hole just because we respect the privacy of people who don’t want to appear in public photos.
  - golemotron 5y ago
    Fact is, there will be no black hole. As much as people try to put the genie back in the bottle with TOS and even law, the tech is not going away.
- akira2501 5y ago
  Why do you feel it's a violation of your privacy to have a picture of you on the internet on a popular forum? Particularly if the photo or it's caption does not name you, the context in which it was taken, or the date. I feel like if you carry the argument far enough, then this should extend to satellite imagery of your home. Isn't that an equivalent violation of your privacy? What about traffic cameras and other webcams setup in public places for public consumption online? If I have an equivalent right to photograph in public, then it's an undue burden on me and a probably an even greater violation of your privacy to chase you and everyone else down and ask for the rights to reproduce it online. I'm not sure this is a feature I want to add to our public spaces.
  - gjulianm 5y ago
    Because it's my image, and I should be able to exert a reasonable control over it. When someone publishes my image, I lose that control, and in these days that could mean anything, from people ignoring it to people making a meme out of it. And I also I shouldn't have to justify why do I have a right to control my own image. > I feel like if you carry the argument far enough, then this should extend to satellite imagery of your home. Isn't that an equivalent violation of your privacy? Yes it is. Luckily published satellite imagery doesn't tend to have enough resolution to actually make out distinguishing details of what would be going on in my backyard, but I'd actually be angry if they did. > What about traffic cameras and other webcams setup in public places for public consumption online? Luckily again, those usually don't have enough resolution to make out identifying details. > If I have an equivalent right to photograph in public, You don't. Privacy trumps your right to photograph in public. If you feel I'm making a funny face, you don't have the right to make me a photo. > then it's an undue burden on me and a probably an even greater violation of your privacy to chase you and everyone else down and ask for the rights to reproduce it online Asking for permission is not a violation of privacy. > I'm not sure this is a feature I want to add to our public spaces. The solution is easy: then don't make photos where people are identifiable without their permission. The alternative is you do, and imagine that you post it and someone makes a meme out of someone that appears there. How would you feel about it? Would your opinion change if someone came to you and said "hey, remember that photo you published where I was on it? Well now I'm the laughing stock of half a million people".
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  Photographs taken in public... aren't private! If you don't want to be photographed in public places, don't go to public places.
  - gjulianm 5y ago
    This is extremely backwards. You don't need to photograph anyone in public places. Would you be ok with having a photo making a ridiculous face online? Or a photo where it looks like you're going to hit someone? Or a photo ignoring a homeless person? All of those would miss context, of course, but the Internet doesn't need context to do whatever with that pic.
    - golemotron 5y ago
      This is all settled law. Anything in public can be photographed freely. Numerous cases.
      - detaro 5y ago
        In some countries.
      - gjulianm 5y ago
        Well, in Spain's it is settled law as you say: you need to ask for consent to distribute images of someone save for a few exceptions, in which "I took a photo of someone in the street" doesn't fit. So it's settled law depending on your country.
cageface 5y ago
I'm inclined to agree with you but the fact that people can now be trivially identified through face recognition in photos changes the considerations here a bit.

gjulianm 5y ago

> Despite the take that these public photographs are "privacy" violations, I think they should be celebrated I don't know why your enjoyment of a photo should take priority over the right to privacy of people. In a world where anything could become a meme overnight, I would very much prefer my image to not be tweeted publicly without my consent, specially by people with a large audience. If the photographer wants to portray those emotions, make the photo and ask later, and delete them if the person doesn't want to have a picture taken of. I understand that for most people the risks will outweigh the benefits.

LocalH 5y ago
It's not about "enjoyment". It's about documenting history in a very real and normal way. These are the photos that future historians will study. Would you rather them have a huge black hole because people decided "my privacy rights when I'm in public are more important than everything else", which I honestly see to be a more entitled viewpoint.
- afthonos 5y ago
  I’m not sure “people not yet alive have a right to mundane details of your life” is the less entitled position, tbh. In their defense, they’re not the ones making that argument.
- gjulianm 5y ago
  There is absolutely no lack of material of any kind to document this period of history. There will be no huge black hole just because we respect the privacy of people who don’t want to appear in public photos.
- golemotron 5y ago
  Fact is, there will be no black hole. As much as people try to put the genie back in the bottle with TOS and even law, the tech is not going away.
akira2501 5y ago
Why do you feel it's a violation of your privacy to have a picture of you on the internet on a popular forum? Particularly if the photo or it's caption does not name you, the context in which it was taken, or the date. I feel like if you carry the argument far enough, then this should extend to satellite imagery of your home. Isn't that an equivalent violation of your privacy? What about traffic cameras and other webcams setup in public places for public consumption online? If I have an equivalent right to photograph in public, then it's an undue burden on me and a probably an even greater violation of your privacy to chase you and everyone else down and ask for the rights to reproduce it online. I'm not sure this is a feature I want to add to our public spaces.
- gjulianm 5y ago
  Because it's my image, and I should be able to exert a reasonable control over it. When someone publishes my image, I lose that control, and in these days that could mean anything, from people ignoring it to people making a meme out of it. And I also I shouldn't have to justify why do I have a right to control my own image. > I feel like if you carry the argument far enough, then this should extend to satellite imagery of your home. Isn't that an equivalent violation of your privacy? Yes it is. Luckily published satellite imagery doesn't tend to have enough resolution to actually make out distinguishing details of what would be going on in my backyard, but I'd actually be angry if they did. > What about traffic cameras and other webcams setup in public places for public consumption online? Luckily again, those usually don't have enough resolution to make out identifying details. > If I have an equivalent right to photograph in public, You don't. Privacy trumps your right to photograph in public. If you feel I'm making a funny face, you don't have the right to make me a photo. > then it's an undue burden on me and a probably an even greater violation of your privacy to chase you and everyone else down and ask for the rights to reproduce it online Asking for permission is not a violation of privacy. > I'm not sure this is a feature I want to add to our public spaces. The solution is easy: then don't make photos where people are identifiable without their permission. The alternative is you do, and imagine that you post it and someone makes a meme out of someone that appears there. How would you feel about it? Would your opinion change if someone came to you and said "hey, remember that photo you published where I was on it? Well now I'm the laughing stock of half a million people".
robbedpeter 5y ago
Photographs taken in public... aren't private! If you don't want to be photographed in public places, don't go to public places.
- gjulianm 5y ago
  This is extremely backwards. You don't need to photograph anyone in public places. Would you be ok with having a photo making a ridiculous face online? Or a photo where it looks like you're going to hit someone? Or a photo ignoring a homeless person? All of those would miss context, of course, but the Internet doesn't need context to do whatever with that pic.
  - golemotron 5y ago
    This is all settled law. Anything in public can be photographed freely. Numerous cases.
    - detaro 5y ago
      In some countries.
    - gjulianm 5y ago
      Well, in Spain's it is settled law as you say: you need to ask for consent to distribute images of someone save for a few exceptions, in which "I took a photo of someone in the street" doesn't fit. So it's settled law depending on your country.

cageface 5y ago

I'm inclined to agree with you but the fact that people can now be trivially identified through face recognition in photos changes the considerations here a bit.