6 ms·

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. While it's certainly polite not to take photos of strangers and post them without asking if it's o

by yosito 3y ago

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. While it's certainly polite not to take photos of strangers and post them without asking if it's ok, you shouldn't morally or legally need permission. They're in public. Their actions can be seen by anyone else in public who crosses paths with them, whether online or off. There are cameras everywhere, and a random person with their smartphone should not be held to a higher standard than a surveillance company or security camera. I recently had someone give me a hard time because I had posted a selfie where someone else was in the background smoking a cigarette. The person was recognizable but far from being the focus of the photo. It was a complete coincidence that they were in the background, but a friend of theirs recognized them was angry that I had posted a photo of them without consent doing something that they didn't want shared on social media. Well, I'm sorry, but if you don't want people to see you doing something, don't do it in public. I chose to immediately remove the photo out of politeness and to avoid drama, but in my opinion, people have no right to be upset if a photo of them doing something in public goes viral.

hattmall 3y ago
I think it's actually pretty reasonable to have an expectation of relative privacy even while in public. As in I'm obviously expecting to be seen by the people in my immediate vicinity but not by people who aren't nearby. For the entirety of human existence until it very slowly started changing with cameras, but that rate of change has accelerated exponentially in the last ~15 years with ubiquitous camera phones and social media.
- yosito 3y ago
  > As in I'm obviously expecting to be seen by the people in my immediate vicinity but not by people who aren't nearby. If you're in a forest, maybe that's reasonable. But it would really be interesting to see some statistics about how many security cameras the average person is recorded on in a day, with the images broadcasted to servers around the world. I'd wager a guess that in modern cosmopolitan cities, it's probably upwards of 100 cameras a day. Meanwhile we're completely unaware of this fact and get upset when a stranger points a smartphone at us.
  - ck425 3y ago
    The important difference though is that most security camera's aren't publicly posting the footage. I'd expect most people to be upset if a shop started live streaming everyone that went by the street.
    - redfern314 3y ago
      That would just be a webcam, and there are tons of them out there that don't (to my knowledge) get any blowback. Example I saw in person a couple years ago (Estes Park, CO): https://originaltaffyshop.com/taffy-cam.php https://originaltaffyshop.com/taffy-cam.php They had a sign out front saying something like "tell your mom to visit this website so you can wave to her". Nobody seemed to mind. Maybe the difference here is that it is clearly marked?
rcme 3y ago
I think you’re confusing legal duty with moral duty. I have no reasonable expectation conversational counterparts aren’t lying through their teeth, but I have the moral expectation that they’re telling the truth. Similarly, you have no expectation of privacy when browsing the internet, but I think you would still feel an invasion of your privacy should I post your browsing history, along with your real name, publicly. Ultimately, moral codes are about creating a functioning society. Having people feel comfortable in public is an important aspect of that.
- yosito 3y ago
  > you have no expectation of privacy when browsing the internet Uh, yes I do. And a very reasonable one!
  - rcme 3y ago
    Why? When you’re browsing the internet, you’re connecting to servers owned by others and agreeing to their terms of service. You’re also using a service provider to provide your internet service, which is, again, privately owned. From where to you derive your expectation of privacy?
    - yosito 3y ago
      And when I'm showering in my apartment, I'm on privately owned property agreeing to my rental contract. That doesn't give my landlord a moral right to place a camera in the shower and post the photos online. Privacy in private is a right.
      - rcme 3y ago
        I hate to break it to you, but a sever in Google’s data center is not a private place. And if you shower in a public shower? For instance at the gym or pool? I believe you’re beginning to see that you have certain expectations of privacy in public too.
        3y ago
nullindividual 3y ago
You're coming at it from a legal perspective where the platforms do not have their own rules on what is allowed or not allowed. In the example I gave in this thread, yes the man was in public, nude, however the platform (reddit) has a rule against posting this type of content. That reddit itself doesn't follow. > I recently had someone give me a hard time because I had posted a selfie where someone else was in the background smoking a cigarette. Why didn't you blur/crop/etc. them out, instead? While you're not legally nor technically in the wrong and you're welcome to argue until you're blue in the face of 'public!', (the royal) you can ask those who are in the picture if you can post it, being a kind, thoughtful, and respectful human being, or you can go "it's in public! the law says I can!". And then the rest of us can make comments about morality and respect. And if you don't know the people in the picture, ask yourself, do I really need to post this? (hint: no)
- yosito 3y ago
  > Why didn't you blur/crop/etc. them out, instead? Because they weren't the focus of the photo and I really didn't even notice them there. And I don't believe that it matters one bit if someone is caught doing something embarrassing in public on camera. They could have been the focus of the photo and I still think it would have been morally acceptable to post it. Whether it is acceptable according to the rules of the platform it's posted on, or according to social etiquette, is a completely different question.
  - nullindividual 3y ago
    > They could have been the focus of the photo and I still think it would have been morally acceptable to post it. No. No it wouldn't have been. You have absolutely zero need to post any picture online. It is a choice; a choice to further humliate the individual, possibly even causing them greater distress. People who post pictures with justification like yours have caused those who are the target of the cruelty to commit suicide. You do not need to post anything on social media. You choose to do so. And by choosing to post an embarrassing moment, you are the problem and you are morally in the wrong.
rolph 3y ago
>> There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public << this is the most incorrect statement i have seen today. you should experience what happens if you walk up to a woman with a purse and start rummaging through it. clothes would be unreasonable as well, you should look under peoples garments and tell them about how unreasonable they are being .
- yosito 3y ago
  Rummaging though someone's personal belongings is not the same as observing and reporting what they do in public. I am not making that argument, and you are being disingenuous to imply that I am.
  - rolph 3y ago
    well i am making that argument and im not implying any thing. >> observing and reporting what they do in public.<< try this for real, you wont like what the observed response is.
    - yosito 3y ago
      What do you think journalists and reporters do? Is their work immoral?
      - rolph 3y ago
        why do you think journalists, and reporters are so safety conscious ? why do they use pseudonyms?
        yosito 3y ago
        Is the answer you're expecting that journalists are doing something that is immoral? Because that's not it.
        rolph 3y ago
foogazi 3y ago
> They're in public. Their actions can be seen by anyone else in public who crosses paths with them Yes, in public in that same instant - were public is constrained to be the people present there Once it’s recorded it can be copied and transmitted to far off places and preserved in time
jwie 3y ago
There’s a gulf between the lack of expectation of privacy and that information pushed into a social media platform. Sure, I don’t have an expectation of privacy. But I do have an expectation of not being made into content for anyone to consume.
- yosito 3y ago
  I don't think that's a realistic expectation, and hasn't been since at least the middle of the last century. Public acts have been in the media for a long long time.

by yosito 3y ago

hattmall 3y ago

I think it's actually pretty reasonable to have an expectation of relative privacy even while in public. As in I'm obviously expecting to be seen by the people in my immediate vicinity but not by people who aren't nearby. For the entirety of human existence until it very slowly started changing with cameras, but that rate of change has accelerated exponentially in the last ~15 years with ubiquitous camera phones and social media.

yosito 3y ago
> As in I'm obviously expecting to be seen by the people in my immediate vicinity but not by people who aren't nearby. If you're in a forest, maybe that's reasonable. But it would really be interesting to see some statistics about how many security cameras the average person is recorded on in a day, with the images broadcasted to servers around the world. I'd wager a guess that in modern cosmopolitan cities, it's probably upwards of 100 cameras a day. Meanwhile we're completely unaware of this fact and get upset when a stranger points a smartphone at us.
- ck425 3y ago
  The important difference though is that most security camera's aren't publicly posting the footage. I'd expect most people to be upset if a shop started live streaming everyone that went by the street.
  - redfern314 3y ago
    That would just be a webcam, and there are tons of them out there that don't (to my knowledge) get any blowback. Example I saw in person a couple years ago (Estes Park, CO): https://originaltaffyshop.com/taffy-cam.php https://originaltaffyshop.com/taffy-cam.php They had a sign out front saying something like "tell your mom to visit this website so you can wave to her". Nobody seemed to mind. Maybe the difference here is that it is clearly marked?

rcme 3y ago

I think you’re confusing legal duty with moral duty. I have no reasonable expectation conversational counterparts aren’t lying through their teeth, but I have the moral expectation that they’re telling the truth. Similarly, you have no expectation of privacy when browsing the internet, but I think you would still feel an invasion of your privacy should I post your browsing history, along with your real name, publicly. Ultimately, moral codes are about creating a functioning society. Having people feel comfortable in public is an important aspect of that.

yosito 3y ago
> you have no expectation of privacy when browsing the internet Uh, yes I do. And a very reasonable one!
- rcme 3y ago
  Why? When you’re browsing the internet, you’re connecting to servers owned by others and agreeing to their terms of service. You’re also using a service provider to provide your internet service, which is, again, privately owned. From where to you derive your expectation of privacy?
  - yosito 3y ago
    And when I'm showering in my apartment, I'm on privately owned property agreeing to my rental contract. That doesn't give my landlord a moral right to place a camera in the shower and post the photos online. Privacy in private is a right.
    - rcme 3y ago
      I hate to break it to you, but a sever in Google’s data center is not a private place. And if you shower in a public shower? For instance at the gym or pool? I believe you’re beginning to see that you have certain expectations of privacy in public too.
      - 3y ago

nullindividual 3y ago

You're coming at it from a legal perspective where the platforms do not have their own rules on what is allowed or not allowed. In the example I gave in this thread, yes the man was in public, nude, however the platform (reddit) has a rule against posting this type of content. That reddit itself doesn't follow. > I recently had someone give me a hard time because I had posted a selfie where someone else was in the background smoking a cigarette. Why didn't you blur/crop/etc. them out, instead? While you're not legally nor technically in the wrong and you're welcome to argue until you're blue in the face of 'public!', (the royal) you can ask those who are in the picture if you can post it, being a kind, thoughtful, and respectful human being, or you can go "it's in public! the law says I can!". And then the rest of us can make comments about morality and respect. And if you don't know the people in the picture, ask yourself, do I really need to post this? (hint: no)

yosito 3y ago
> Why didn't you blur/crop/etc. them out, instead? Because they weren't the focus of the photo and I really didn't even notice them there. And I don't believe that it matters one bit if someone is caught doing something embarrassing in public on camera. They could have been the focus of the photo and I still think it would have been morally acceptable to post it. Whether it is acceptable according to the rules of the platform it's posted on, or according to social etiquette, is a completely different question.
- nullindividual 3y ago
  > They could have been the focus of the photo and I still think it would have been morally acceptable to post it. No. No it wouldn't have been. You have absolutely zero need to post any picture online. It is a choice; a choice to further humliate the individual, possibly even causing them greater distress. People who post pictures with justification like yours have caused those who are the target of the cruelty to commit suicide. You do not need to post anything on social media. You choose to do so. And by choosing to post an embarrassing moment, you are the problem and you are morally in the wrong.

rolph 3y ago

>> There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public << this is the most incorrect statement i have seen today. you should experience what happens if you walk up to a woman with a purse and start rummaging through it. clothes would be unreasonable as well, you should look under peoples garments and tell them about how unreasonable they are being .

yosito 3y ago
Rummaging though someone's personal belongings is not the same as observing and reporting what they do in public. I am not making that argument, and you are being disingenuous to imply that I am.
- rolph 3y ago
  well i am making that argument and im not implying any thing. >> observing and reporting what they do in public.<< try this for real, you wont like what the observed response is.
  - yosito 3y ago
    What do you think journalists and reporters do? Is their work immoral?
    - rolph 3y ago
      why do you think journalists, and reporters are so safety conscious ? why do they use pseudonyms?
      - yosito 3y ago
        Is the answer you're expecting that journalists are doing something that is immoral? Because that's not it.
        rolph 3y ago

foogazi 3y ago

> They're in public. Their actions can be seen by anyone else in public who crosses paths with them Yes, in public in that same instant - were public is constrained to be the people present there Once it’s recorded it can be copied and transmitted to far off places and preserved in time

jwie 3y ago

There’s a gulf between the lack of expectation of privacy and that information pushed into a social media platform. Sure, I don’t have an expectation of privacy. But I do have an expectation of not being made into content for anyone to consume.

yosito 3y ago
I don't think that's a realistic expectation, and hasn't been since at least the middle of the last century. Public acts have been in the media for a long long time.