3 ms·

As a dad that does a lot of outdoor adventures with my young son... apparently there is something cute or interesting looking about us, and strangers literally

by _yb2s 2y ago

As a dad that does a lot of outdoor adventures with my young son... apparently there is something cute or interesting looking about us, and strangers literally crowd around us snapping photos almost everytime we go out. Maybe half ask first, but when I say no they often try to argue "it's just a picture!" I am a very private person and don't put photos of myself or my family online at all, in any capacity, but there are tons of photos of us posted online by strangers against our will- I confirmed this via an AI facial recognition search engine. My son is also often the only non-white kid in schools, summer camps, etc. so they want to use his photo on all of the advertising, billboards, newsletters, etc. usually without permission, and they act indignant when I stop them from doing so. Apparently it's all the rage to brag that your overpriced summercamp once had a non-white person enroll, and prominently use photos of them on everything forever. Leave us alone!

bluefirebrand 2y ago
I've found that people who are serious about photography tend to behave in a way that is exactly legal but still extremely annoying. They're relatively harmless (after all "it's just a picture!") but the behavior is still a public nuisance A few years ago I read a similar anecdote of a woman being accosted by a photographer on transit, taking photos of the baby she was carrying and persisting even after asked to stop. She wound up having to physically shield herself and the baby from being photographed and the guy kept taking other shots every chance he got, like when she was leaving the train and such. Super rude, but technically legal. This was in Alberta, for those who care It really made me think we need different laws about consent in photography. Surely we can carve out exceptions for photographing notable events, documenting crimes, crowd shots and other such valid reasons for photographing someone without consent, without allowing a rando with a camera to pester (and arguably intimidate) people just going about their day Edit: There was also a case a few years ago of a guy going around taking creepshots of women, their butts and cleavage and such and publishing them. That was clearly illegal so we already do have some rules about public photography that is allowed and some that isn't.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  > A few years ago I read a similar anecdote of a woman being accosted by a photographer on transit, taking photos of the baby she was carrying and persisting even after asked to stop. She wound up having to physically shield herself and the baby from being photographed and the guy kept taking other shots every chance he got, like when she was leaving the train and such. Super rude, but technically legal. I think there's a line somewhere between "being annoying/rude/obnoxious" and "politely refusing to stop recording." You can see this when you look at a few different "First Amendment Auditor" content creators. Some of them are obviously obnoxious, belligerent, and clearly looking for conflict. Others just quietly keep recording, politely but firmly ignoring the subject's (often themselves annoying) demands for them to stop. I don't have any problem whatsoever with the latter behavior. The former is kind of cheap and trashy, even if it's still legal.
  - bluefirebrand 2y ago
    Both are unacceptable behaviors in my opinion Quietly continuing to record is ignoring that the person even has protested. It's still asserting that your right to record them trumps any objection they might raise. It is in effect reducing them from a person to simply the subject of your recording Yes, one of these behaviors you describe is much more visibly obnoxious, but the quieter version is still obnoxious. It shows absolutely no respect for the people you are recording
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    You really don't have a problem with someone quietly ignoring your request to stop photographing you or your family minding your own business, and just continuing? It feels like a massive invasion- I am pretty shocked that it isn't illegal already. I have had people do this to me, and I used body language rather than words to show that I was going to physically take the camera from them if they didn't stop- and I would do so, but it never got to that point. At one point I did demand a stranger delete the photos, and I watched until they were done, under the implication that I would be doing it for them if they didn't.
    - 2y ago
seoulmetro 2y ago
>I confirmed this via an AI facial recognition search engine. Lol! You just put the more information of yourselves online by that one action than 1,000 happy snaps on Facebook would have. There is some irony in knowing enough not to put your photos online but not knowing enough as to feed it the most key information for your identity possible. "But they won't use this information!", nope. They will. "But it can't be tied back to me.", yep. It can.

by _yb2s 2y ago

bluefirebrand 2y ago

I've found that people who are serious about photography tend to behave in a way that is exactly legal but still extremely annoying. They're relatively harmless (after all "it's just a picture!") but the behavior is still a public nuisance A few years ago I read a similar anecdote of a woman being accosted by a photographer on transit, taking photos of the baby she was carrying and persisting even after asked to stop. She wound up having to physically shield herself and the baby from being photographed and the guy kept taking other shots every chance he got, like when she was leaving the train and such. Super rude, but technically legal. This was in Alberta, for those who care It really made me think we need different laws about consent in photography. Surely we can carve out exceptions for photographing notable events, documenting crimes, crowd shots and other such valid reasons for photographing someone without consent, without allowing a rando with a camera to pester (and arguably intimidate) people just going about their day Edit: There was also a case a few years ago of a guy going around taking creepshots of women, their butts and cleavage and such and publishing them. That was clearly illegal so we already do have some rules about public photography that is allowed and some that isn't.

ryandrake 2y ago
> A few years ago I read a similar anecdote of a woman being accosted by a photographer on transit, taking photos of the baby she was carrying and persisting even after asked to stop. She wound up having to physically shield herself and the baby from being photographed and the guy kept taking other shots every chance he got, like when she was leaving the train and such. Super rude, but technically legal. I think there's a line somewhere between "being annoying/rude/obnoxious" and "politely refusing to stop recording." You can see this when you look at a few different "First Amendment Auditor" content creators. Some of them are obviously obnoxious, belligerent, and clearly looking for conflict. Others just quietly keep recording, politely but firmly ignoring the subject's (often themselves annoying) demands for them to stop. I don't have any problem whatsoever with the latter behavior. The former is kind of cheap and trashy, even if it's still legal.
- bluefirebrand 2y ago
  Both are unacceptable behaviors in my opinion Quietly continuing to record is ignoring that the person even has protested. It's still asserting that your right to record them trumps any objection they might raise. It is in effect reducing them from a person to simply the subject of your recording Yes, one of these behaviors you describe is much more visibly obnoxious, but the quieter version is still obnoxious. It shows absolutely no respect for the people you are recording
- _yb2s 2y ago
  You really don't have a problem with someone quietly ignoring your request to stop photographing you or your family minding your own business, and just continuing? It feels like a massive invasion- I am pretty shocked that it isn't illegal already. I have had people do this to me, and I used body language rather than words to show that I was going to physically take the camera from them if they didn't stop- and I would do so, but it never got to that point. At one point I did demand a stranger delete the photos, and I watched until they were done, under the implication that I would be doing it for them if they didn't.
  - 2y ago

seoulmetro 2y ago

>I confirmed this via an AI facial recognition search engine. Lol! You just put the more information of yourselves online by that one action than 1,000 happy snaps on Facebook would have. There is some irony in knowing enough not to put your photos online but not knowing enough as to feed it the most key information for your identity possible. "But they won't use this information!", nope. They will. "But it can't be tied back to me.", yep. It can.