3 ms·

> Which means I have a photograph of you which you did not consent to being in and you object to me sharing. Then it's impossible to take pictures of public sp

> Which means I have a photograph of you which you did not consent to being in and you object to me sharing. Then it's impossible to take pictures of public spaces. There's a reason why you do not have the benefit of privacy in a public space.

shkkmo 5y ago
That is fear mongering. Nothing stops you from taking the pictures, nothing stops you from posting the pictures. It only provides a mechanism to allow the unposting of specific reported pictures from twitter. You have to see one heck of a slippery slope to see this policy and jump immediately to "it's impossible to take pictures of public places.'
- Kye 5y ago
  Accounts are already report bombed off Twitter for tweets that didn't in any way violate the rule they were tagged as violating, and appeals go nowhere. I do not have any trust in Twitter's ability to make this discernment.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    Twitter doing a bad job of determining which photos are "in the public interest" and removing photoes that should not be removed still doesn't translate to "you can't take photos of public places" by any measure. At the very worst it just means that people stop posting photos on twitter to avoid one avenue of report bombing. I have repeatedly argued that we need legal user protections that protect users from large corporations arbitrarily enforcing their rules with no real appeal process or transparency. However, fear mongering with projections that have no basis in reality does not help move us in that direction.
  - Kye 5y ago
    That didn't take long. https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1465831941157052416 https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1465831941157052416
d1sxeyes 5y ago
No-one's saying that, those are two bold, unsupported assertions. Point number 1: Even if you stretch hard, the closest I can get is 'it wouldn't be permitted to take pictures of public spaces with people in who don't consent to being photographed and then share those on Twitter'. Point number 2: It is true that in some countries, you have no (legal) expectation of privacy in a public place. However, it's not universally true. Where I am, for example, in Hungary, actually something very similar to Twitter's new policy is the law[0]). Although there may be no LEGAL constraint where you live, perhaps you wouldn't want someone standing outside the local reproductive health or women's shelter photographing everyone who goes in and out. I certainly wouldn't. What I'm saying is that if someone has a photograph of me which I didn't consent to being in, then I think it's reasonable that if I object to them sharing they photo, then they should have the 'burden of proof' that they have a right to share. I don't think that 'burden of proof' needs to be particularly high, and 'oh, they're just in the background in my photo of the street' or 'I thought it might be interesting that they were snorting cocaine on the main street' is OK. The problem is that 'public spaces' and 'benefit of privacy' are terms that date back to before the internet. The trivial difficulty and cost of creating, processing, distributing, and cataloguing data through facial recognition, geolocation, etc. today means it's at least worth considering whether these laws are the best fit for our modern lives, rather than throwing out criticisms as though one specific law is both written in stone and applies everywhere. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/14/hungary-law-photography-permission-take-pictures https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/14/hungary-law-ph...

shkkmo 5y ago

That is fear mongering. Nothing stops you from taking the pictures, nothing stops you from posting the pictures. It only provides a mechanism to allow the unposting of specific reported pictures from twitter. You have to see one heck of a slippery slope to see this policy and jump immediately to "it's impossible to take pictures of public places.'

Kye 5y ago
Accounts are already report bombed off Twitter for tweets that didn't in any way violate the rule they were tagged as violating, and appeals go nowhere. I do not have any trust in Twitter's ability to make this discernment.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  Twitter doing a bad job of determining which photos are "in the public interest" and removing photoes that should not be removed still doesn't translate to "you can't take photos of public places" by any measure. At the very worst it just means that people stop posting photos on twitter to avoid one avenue of report bombing. I have repeatedly argued that we need legal user protections that protect users from large corporations arbitrarily enforcing their rules with no real appeal process or transparency. However, fear mongering with projections that have no basis in reality does not help move us in that direction.
- Kye 5y ago
  That didn't take long. https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1465831941157052416 https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1465831941157052416

d1sxeyes 5y ago

No-one's saying that, those are two bold, unsupported assertions. Point number 1: Even if you stretch hard, the closest I can get is 'it wouldn't be permitted to take pictures of public spaces with people in who don't consent to being photographed and then share those on Twitter'. Point number 2: It is true that in some countries, you have no (legal) expectation of privacy in a public place. However, it's not universally true. Where I am, for example, in Hungary, actually something very similar to Twitter's new policy is the law[0]). Although there may be no LEGAL constraint where you live, perhaps you wouldn't want someone standing outside the local reproductive health or women's shelter photographing everyone who goes in and out. I certainly wouldn't. What I'm saying is that if someone has a photograph of me which I didn't consent to being in, then I think it's reasonable that if I object to them sharing they photo, then they should have the 'burden of proof' that they have a right to share. I don't think that 'burden of proof' needs to be particularly high, and 'oh, they're just in the background in my photo of the street' or 'I thought it might be interesting that they were snorting cocaine on the main street' is OK. The problem is that 'public spaces' and 'benefit of privacy' are terms that date back to before the internet. The trivial difficulty and cost of creating, processing, distributing, and cataloguing data through facial recognition, geolocation, etc. today means it's at least worth considering whether these laws are the best fit for our modern lives, rather than throwing out criticisms as though one specific law is both written in stone and applies everywhere. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/14/hungary-law-photography-permission-take-pictures https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/14/hungary-law-ph...