3 ms·

I disagree. It wouldn't be nice to solve it, because it would mean nobody could ever take a picture of anything where there might be anyone recognizable in the

I disagree. It wouldn't be nice to solve it, because it would mean nobody could ever take a picture of anything where there might be anyone recognizable in the background, without getting them to sign some kind of model release first. Is that what you want? For innocent photography in public to be essentially outlawed?

ixsploit 1y ago
Or you know, not making it public. And if you might need to make the photo public, you could blur the faces.
- crazygringo 1y ago
  And your want to make that the law, so you get fined or go to jail if you don't blur everyone's face on every photo you post if you haven't gotten a signed consent from them?
  - andersa 1y ago
    Yes.
    - crazygringo 1y ago
      Well, thanks for being honest. That's not a world I would want to live in, and I guess I'm thankful most other people don't either. The ability to photograph is important for accountability and truth in a democracy, it's important to families wanting to document and share their trips easily, and it's important for art, among many other things. Fundamentally, it feels like a kind of freedom to me. But it's interesting to see there are people who disagree.
      - andersa 1y ago
        You can do all of those things without creating a public record of me.
        crazygringo 1y ago
        What if I can't? What if you're in the photo? What if you're doing something newsworthy? Or what if you're right behind the person doing something newsworthy?
        andersa 1y ago
        > What if you're in the photo? Blur that region before posting it with an algorithm that can't be reversed. The camera app could even do this automatically. > What if you're doing something newsworthy? Every good rule has some exceptions.
        crazygringo 1y ago
        Sorry. I just don't think parents at the park who take photos of their kids and share them on a public site with friends should be legally required to blur any passerby's face or go to jail. If they want to do it voluntarily then great. But making it criminal if you don't -- I don't understand that.
        zmgsabst 1y ago
        Why shouldn’t they be fined for invading someone else’s privacy because they’re too lazy to touch up the photos on their phone? — why should their laziness negatively impact others use of public space? You’re just making an argument for inconveniencing others out of laziness — but trying to dress it up in principles.
        crazygringo 1y ago
        Because it's a right to be lazy. And thank goodness it is. You can inconvenience other people in a thousand different ways every day. And should be allowed to. The idea that laziness or inconvenience ought to be outlawed... do you realize what you're saying? The kind of police state you're envisioning? This is a principled thing. What's next, I get fined for walking slowly on the sidewalk? For holding up the line at the supermarket for a price check? For paying in dimes instead of dollar bills? Think about the legal principle you seem to be suggesting.
      - zmgsabst 1y ago
        What part of those requires posting my unblurred face online?
        crazygringo 1y ago
        Why should I legally be required to do that, and go to jail if I don't? What makes it so important you think it should be criminal not to?
        zmgsabst 1y ago
        I think you should be fined for posting pictures of people publicly without their consent. None of those things require you to invade their privacy and enjoyment of public space — you’re just negatively impacting them because you’re lazy and antisocial. Fines are how we handle such nuisances in other cases.
        crazygringo 1y ago
        Nothing requires you to get upset about showing up in the background of someone's photo either. As far as I can tell, you're the one being antisocial because you're trying to make demands on what people do with their photos just because you happened to be in the frame. And it's not like they're trying to sell the photos or anything. And fines aren't some kind of innocent thing. If you don't pay the fines, the police come to seize your property. If you resist, you go to jail. That's what you want? Again, that's just not the world I want to live in.
        zmgsabst 1y ago
        You’re the one trying to include people in your photos without their consent. Everyone should be allowed to enjoy public spaces without you imposing on them for your activities — and that includes you taking photos. Nothing about their desire not to be photographed requires that you not take photographs — just that if you do, without their permission and with identifiable features showing, you’ll have to take a few seconds to blur that before you upload it publicly. Yes — that’s absolutely an antisocial imposition on their enjoyment. And yes — you should be fined for doing that.
  - brna-2 1y ago
    For me not necessarily, I would like a mechanism for distinction and a culture where you respect people you record.
  - op00to 1y ago
    OP didn’t respect his fellow hobbyists by asking them to not film him. Why should OP expect respect in return?
andersa 1y ago
> Is that what you want? Yes. I would like to go back to a time before everyone had 3 different cameras with them and the ability to share those photos to a global network so third parties can use that data to track what I am doing literally everywhere. I no longer leave my house except for strictly necessary obligations.
- crazygringo 1y ago
  Genuine question, what are you worried about that this is affecting how often you leave your house? What is making that the best cost-benefit analysis for you?
  - brna-2 1y ago
    I would also want to know. Did the game of being incognito grow into the logic that leaving your house is not viable anymore or something else?
- op00to 1y ago
  You sound like you may need some sort of mental health assistance if you no longer leave your house, especially because of fear of some sort of global dragnet using Facebook videos that you may be present in. I hope you can get some peace.
Ekaros 1y ago
Absolutely at least publishing it. If you want to publish it on say social media. Censor in some way everyone you do not have explicit written consent from for that specific image.
OtherShrezzing 1y ago
The article is discussing a private rather than public space. We've got loads of private places where photography is restricted - usually when that space involves physical exercise (gyms, pools, etc). I don't think it's unreasonable to have a level-headed discussion about how society and technology have evolved since those norms came into practice, and if they should be expanded now that photography is ubiquitous.
- crazygringo 1y ago
  > usually when that space involves physical exercise (gyms, pools, etc). You might have that wrong. It's when that space involves people wearing revealing clothing. And Airsoft kit is... not that. It's not about exercise.

ixsploit 1y ago

Or you know, not making it public. And if you might need to make the photo public, you could blur the faces.

crazygringo 1y ago
And your want to make that the law, so you get fined or go to jail if you don't blur everyone's face on every photo you post if you haven't gotten a signed consent from them?
- andersa 1y ago
  Yes.
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    Well, thanks for being honest. That's not a world I would want to live in, and I guess I'm thankful most other people don't either. The ability to photograph is important for accountability and truth in a democracy, it's important to families wanting to document and share their trips easily, and it's important for art, among many other things. Fundamentally, it feels like a kind of freedom to me. But it's interesting to see there are people who disagree.
    - andersa 1y ago
      You can do all of those things without creating a public record of me.
      - crazygringo 1y ago
        What if I can't? What if you're in the photo? What if you're doing something newsworthy? Or what if you're right behind the person doing something newsworthy?
        andersa 1y ago
        > What if you're in the photo? Blur that region before posting it with an algorithm that can't be reversed. The camera app could even do this automatically. > What if you're doing something newsworthy? Every good rule has some exceptions.
        crazygringo 1y ago
        Sorry. I just don't think parents at the park who take photos of their kids and share them on a public site with friends should be legally required to blur any passerby's face or go to jail. If they want to do it voluntarily then great. But making it criminal if you don't -- I don't understand that.
        zmgsabst 1y ago
        Why shouldn’t they be fined for invading someone else’s privacy because they’re too lazy to touch up the photos on their phone? — why should their laziness negatively impact others use of public space? You’re just making an argument for inconveniencing others out of laziness — but trying to dress it up in principles.
        crazygringo 1y ago
        Because it's a right to be lazy. And thank goodness it is. You can inconvenience other people in a thousand different ways every day. And should be allowed to. The idea that laziness or inconvenience ought to be outlawed... do you realize what you're saying? The kind of police state you're envisioning? This is a principled thing. What's next, I get fined for walking slowly on the sidewalk? For holding up the line at the supermarket for a price check? For paying in dimes instead of dollar bills? Think about the legal principle you seem to be suggesting.
    - zmgsabst 1y ago
      What part of those requires posting my unblurred face online?
      - crazygringo 1y ago
        Why should I legally be required to do that, and go to jail if I don't? What makes it so important you think it should be criminal not to?
        zmgsabst 1y ago
        I think you should be fined for posting pictures of people publicly without their consent. None of those things require you to invade their privacy and enjoyment of public space — you’re just negatively impacting them because you’re lazy and antisocial. Fines are how we handle such nuisances in other cases.
        crazygringo 1y ago
        Nothing requires you to get upset about showing up in the background of someone's photo either. As far as I can tell, you're the one being antisocial because you're trying to make demands on what people do with their photos just because you happened to be in the frame. And it's not like they're trying to sell the photos or anything. And fines aren't some kind of innocent thing. If you don't pay the fines, the police come to seize your property. If you resist, you go to jail. That's what you want? Again, that's just not the world I want to live in.
        zmgsabst 1y ago
        You’re the one trying to include people in your photos without their consent. Everyone should be allowed to enjoy public spaces without you imposing on them for your activities — and that includes you taking photos. Nothing about their desire not to be photographed requires that you not take photographs — just that if you do, without their permission and with identifiable features showing, you’ll have to take a few seconds to blur that before you upload it publicly. Yes — that’s absolutely an antisocial imposition on their enjoyment. And yes — you should be fined for doing that.
- brna-2 1y ago
  For me not necessarily, I would like a mechanism for distinction and a culture where you respect people you record.
- op00to 1y ago
  OP didn’t respect his fellow hobbyists by asking them to not film him. Why should OP expect respect in return?

andersa 1y ago

> Is that what you want? Yes. I would like to go back to a time before everyone had 3 different cameras with them and the ability to share those photos to a global network so third parties can use that data to track what I am doing literally everywhere. I no longer leave my house except for strictly necessary obligations.

crazygringo 1y ago
Genuine question, what are you worried about that this is affecting how often you leave your house? What is making that the best cost-benefit analysis for you?
- brna-2 1y ago
  I would also want to know. Did the game of being incognito grow into the logic that leaving your house is not viable anymore or something else?
op00to 1y ago
You sound like you may need some sort of mental health assistance if you no longer leave your house, especially because of fear of some sort of global dragnet using Facebook videos that you may be present in. I hope you can get some peace.

Ekaros 1y ago

Absolutely at least publishing it. If you want to publish it on say social media. Censor in some way everyone you do not have explicit written consent from for that specific image.

OtherShrezzing 1y ago

The article is discussing a private rather than public space. We've got loads of private places where photography is restricted - usually when that space involves physical exercise (gyms, pools, etc). I don't think it's unreasonable to have a level-headed discussion about how society and technology have evolved since those norms came into practice, and if they should be expanded now that photography is ubiquitous.

crazygringo 1y ago
> usually when that space involves physical exercise (gyms, pools, etc). You might have that wrong. It's when that space involves people wearing revealing clothing. And Airsoft kit is... not that. It's not about exercise.