5 ms·

There's no expectation of privacy in public places.

by cvalka 4y ago

zinekeller 4y ago
That is only really applicable in few places such as the US. France, Germany and Japan (to name a few) extends the right of privacy even when outside of residence.
- zinekeller 4y ago
  Already beyond editing time, but I also have to point out that even if there's no privacy component, there are "personality rights" which restricts showing their likeness without consent (which is also widespread except in few places such as the US).
azornathogron 4y ago
Of course there is. Privacy isn't a binary condition. It is more invasive to be seen than not seen, it is more invasive to be closely watched than to merely be seen incidentally, it is more invasive to be recorded than watched, it is more invasive for a recording to be published than held privately. Somewhere, not all that far along the range, these cross a threshold into harassment, stalking, or other things that people generally recognise as unacceptable. In "public places" the threshold is slightly further along the range but not very much.
giantg2 4y ago
Do you have a source for that? For example, can I take upskirt shots because they're in public? Public restrooms also have an expection of privacy, even though they are public. There are many different laws that are privacy related that deal with public spaces.
- drew-y 4y ago
  In the US: > When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view. That includes pictures of federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police. Such photography is a form of public oversight over the government and is important in a free society[1]. However, this does not apply to areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Public restrooms and (I'd assume) skirts included [2]. [1] https://www.aclusocal.org/en/photographers-rights https://www.aclusocal.org/en/photographers-rights [2] https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/PHOTOG.pdf https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/PHOTOG.pdf
  - Clubber 4y ago
    Ya the up-skirt thing was interesting. There's some laws on the books but I don't think it's ever been tried in the SCOTUS. https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/upskirting.htm https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/upskirting.h...
    - piffey 4y ago
      Left up to the states so far. I know WA it falls under voyeurism. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115 I’ve shot street photography and photojournalistic/documentary work for over a decade now and this seems to be the recurring discussion: “It’s legal to just take pictures of people in public?” And yes, it is. It’s literally how photojournalism works and why child labor (Lewis Hine), civil rights (Gordon Parks), war abuses (Don McCullin), and so much more made it to the forefront of National discussions. Not saying TikTok content is that quality but the laws protecting public recording are an essential component of freedom of expression. Once you start choosing which content gets to be recorded due to some subjective quality rating you fall into censorship.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Why would we just assume that a skirt would be included if the wearer is in a public space and it blows up or somwthing? These sorts or unexplained inclusions/exceptions are could very well be applied to "I assume sticking a mic/camera in someone's face is an invasion of privacy". Apparently it also doesn't apply to court rooms. Nor does it apply to nudity or partial nudity even if publicly photographed.
Beltalowda 4y ago
It's not so much about "privacy", IMO. It's about being unreasonably bothered by others for their for-profit content.
seydor 4y ago
the opposite of privacy is not "public broadcasting and permanent archiving"
_dain_ 4y ago
thought-terminating cliche.
anigbrowl 4y ago
This is overly simplistic. The expectation is reduced, not wholly eliminated.

There's no expectation of privacy in public places.

by cvalka 4y ago

There's no expectation of privacy in public places.

That is only really applicable in few places such as the US. France, Germany and Japan (to name a few) extends the right of privacy even when outside of residence.

zinekeller 4y ago
Already beyond editing time, but I also have to point out that even if there's no privacy component, there are "personality rights" which restricts showing their likeness without consent (which is also widespread except in few places such as the US).

azornathogron 4y ago

Of course there is. Privacy isn't a binary condition. It is more invasive to be seen than not seen, it is more invasive to be closely watched than to merely be seen incidentally, it is more invasive to be recorded than watched, it is more invasive for a recording to be published than held privately. Somewhere, not all that far along the range, these cross a threshold into harassment, stalking, or other things that people generally recognise as unacceptable. In "public places" the threshold is slightly further along the range but not very much.

giantg2 4y ago

Do you have a source for that? For example, can I take upskirt shots because they're in public? Public restrooms also have an expection of privacy, even though they are public. There are many different laws that are privacy related that deal with public spaces.

drew-y 4y ago
In the US: > When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view. That includes pictures of federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police. Such photography is a form of public oversight over the government and is important in a free society[1]. However, this does not apply to areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Public restrooms and (I'd assume) skirts included [2]. [1] https://www.aclusocal.org/en/photographers-rights https://www.aclusocal.org/en/photographers-rights [2] https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/PHOTOG.pdf https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/PHOTOG.pdf
- Clubber 4y ago
  Ya the up-skirt thing was interesting. There's some laws on the books but I don't think it's ever been tried in the SCOTUS. https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/upskirting.htm https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/upskirting.h...
  - piffey 4y ago
    Left up to the states so far. I know WA it falls under voyeurism. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115 I’ve shot street photography and photojournalistic/documentary work for over a decade now and this seems to be the recurring discussion: “It’s legal to just take pictures of people in public?” And yes, it is. It’s literally how photojournalism works and why child labor (Lewis Hine), civil rights (Gordon Parks), war abuses (Don McCullin), and so much more made it to the forefront of National discussions. Not saying TikTok content is that quality but the laws protecting public recording are an essential component of freedom of expression. Once you start choosing which content gets to be recorded due to some subjective quality rating you fall into censorship.
- giantg2 4y ago
  Why would we just assume that a skirt would be included if the wearer is in a public space and it blows up or somwthing? These sorts or unexplained inclusions/exceptions are could very well be applied to "I assume sticking a mic/camera in someone's face is an invasion of privacy". Apparently it also doesn't apply to court rooms. Nor does it apply to nudity or partial nudity even if publicly photographed.

Beltalowda 4y ago

It's not so much about "privacy", IMO. It's about being unreasonably bothered by others for their for-profit content.

seydor 4y ago

the opposite of privacy is not "public broadcasting and permanent archiving"

_dain_ 4y ago

thought-terminating cliche.

anigbrowl 4y ago

This is overly simplistic. The expectation is reduced, not wholly eliminated.