5 ms·

The concept of «public» has changed. About 15-20 years ago I attended a lot of car events (races, shows) where I took lots of photos. Mostly of moving cars, bu

• lynx97 1y ago
  I find the combination of "pictures of strangers" and "our right to take pictures" rather concerning. I have a different perspective, as I am blind. But I was always uncomfortable with having a picture taken of me by basically a stranger. And that feeling didn't just come with social media. It always was there. I disagree that you have a "right" to take pictures of strangers. IMO, you shouldn't have that right. It is probably different depending on what juristiction you are in. But my personal opinion is, that this attitude is rather selfish. In my perfect world, taking pictures of strangers without their consent should be illegal.
  • aspenmayer 1y ago
    > But my personal opinion is, that this attitude is rather selfish. Public photography is cultural preservation and anthropological ethnography. Asking folks to stop is selfish. You are free to have an opinion that differs, and your jurisdiction may even forbid public photography, but in those places I’m familiar with, street photography is as legitimate an art as music played for free on the sidewalk. I wouldn’t argue against public concerts if I were deaf, as it doesn’t concern me, because it isn’t for me, were I unhearing, and the gathering that such public displays engender benefits one and all, regardless of differences of senses or sensibilities amongst those who choose to freely associate. > In my perfect world, taking pictures of strangers without their consent should be illegal. Capturing an image of another without their consent is a bit more nuanced, and I would agree that one is entitled to decide how they are portrayed to a degree, but public spaces aren’t considered private by virtue of them being shared and nonexclusive. All the same, though we may disagree, you have given me some food for thought. I appreciate your unique perspective on this issue, and I thank you sincerely for sharing your point of view.
    • rkomorn 1y ago
      > public spaces aren’t considered private by virtue of them being shared and nonexclusive The problem is that "public" 20 years ago (before cell phone cameras, photo rolls, social media, growth/engagement algorithms, attention economy, virality, etc) vs now just doesn't mean the same thing anymore. There's a difference between "no expectation of privacy" and "no expectation of having every moment of your life in public be liable to be published". And at that point, the only thing left is the "well if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't care if your life is published" type of logic, and I don't love that. I think it's a mistake to cling to a definition of "public" that doesn't account for how much things have changed. Edit: and I use "published" as a direct reference to the "publish" or "post" buttons on various social media apps.
      • aspenmayer 1y ago
        > I think it's a mistake to cling to a definition of "public" that doesn't account for how much things have changed. I think it’s a mistake for others in different jurisdictions to tell those subject to those norms how they ought to live. The times may have changed, and we didn’t start the fire. We could put it out if we wanted, or if the lick of the flames brought us undue harm. Perhaps most folks just don’t want to change as much as the times, and that’s okay. The future is not yet written, and justice is a living thing. We can always go a different way if the future we arrive upon necessitates it. I don’t mind if we have to change, but I do admire the view. The camera can only capture what’s inside the frame, and it would be a shame to stop living, and the greater loss would be to give up on life in pursuit of capturing a fleeting moment. I think for many, like me, who admire the hobby and have a love of photography as an art form, it’s akin to capturing lightning in a bottle. If it were outlawed or constrained, a true loss to society would occur, as that would be a material change in living conditions. Others are free to disagree, and I wouldn’t find fault with them for simply doing so. When it comes to curtailing my rights to preserve history and my place in it, I don’t think I’m the one who is entitled, but those who would prevent me from freely expressing myself through my chosen medium. If you see something, you ought be free to say something or remain silent. Forestalling my speech is not for you to say. Freedom to photograph is a free speech issue, to my view.
  • jstimpfle 1y ago
    There are people who can "take a picture of you" just by looking at you for a second. They have you memorized after that. I believe the usual approach is that in general, if you're in a public space, you accept pictures may be taken of you. But it depends on the context. If you're a bystander in your city while tourists are fotographing places of interest for example, and you make it into the picture, then that will hardly be a problem in any practical legislation. Most legislations probably allow for pictures taken of you even without you being asked explicitly, as long as certain rights are not violated.
    • lynx97 1y ago
      People with photographic memory can't just upload their memories to the Internet. So that comparison is pretty much worthless.
      • volemo 1y ago
        Artists with photographic memory can. And in the modern world of computational photography and gen AI what even is the difference between a photo and drawing?
        • v9v 1y ago
          The difference is time, effort and scalability. There are many things that humans can do that society doesn't strictly regulate, because as human activities they are done in limited volumes. When it becomes possible to automate some of these activities at scale, different sorts of risks and consequences may become a part of the activity.
      • jstimpfle 1y ago
        Just taking a photo using a digital device doesn't imply uploading it either. I'm sure most jurisdictions clearly differentiate between these.
  • bborud 1y ago
    Well, in many parts of the world it is a legal right. You can take pictures of people in public. There are some restrictions, and there’s of course the question of how you go about it, but it is a right. I can understand people don’t like this. Which is why actually doing it requires a good deal of sensitivity and common sense. But that doesn’t mean it would be a good idea to outlaw it. However taking a picture is not the same as publishing it. This is the critical point. The rules for what you can publish tend to be stricter. For instance where I live you can’t generally publish a picture of a person without consent. (It is a bit more complicated than that in practice, with lots of complicated exceptions that are not always spelled out in law. For instance if someone is making a public speech they have no expectation of privacy). As for making it illegal: that comes with far greater problems than you might think. From losing the right to document abuses of power to robbing people of the freedom to take pictures in public. In fact, years ago a law was passed here making it illegal to photograph arrests. A well intentioned law meant to protect suspects who have not been convicted of anything. However it has never been enacted because it was deemed dangerous. It would have made it illegal to document police misconduct, for instance. And since the press here is generally very disciplined about not publishing photos of the majority of suspects, it didn’t actually solve a problem. (In Norway identities are usually withheld in the press until someone is convicted. But sometimes identities are already known to the public. For instance in high profile cases. This, of course, varies by country)
  • volemo 1y ago
    While I agree with you that publishing a picture of a person without their consent ought to be illegal, I as an individual with very unreliable memory and one who’s always doubting my perception of reality, I heavily rely on modern technology and strongly believe that personal recording of any kind is my right, it being simple augmentation of my senses that allows me to live happier and more fulfilled life.
    • exasperaited 1y ago
      It should not be illegal. It should be ethical. The GDPR provides a pretty good framework for media organisations and journalists to shoot people without consent.
    • bornfreddy 1y ago
      What is "publishing"? Is posting on FB also publishing?
      • buellerbueller 1y ago
        yes
    • bborud 1y ago
      Making it illegal is a few steps too far. It leads to situations where you can end up doing more harm than good. In reality this is is a very complicated question and any attempt at "solving" it with absolutes will only complicate matters further. Here's an exercise you can do. Go to a library and look at books by photo journalists who have covered poverty, conflict, disaster etc. There are many, many iconic photographs that helped shape our view of the world, and not least, contributed to making us aware of what was going on. From Dorothea Lange's work in the 1920s covering poverty and suffering in the US, to photographers covering everyday life, and reporters covering anytihing from famine to war. Now ask yourself how many of the subjects in those photos signed releases or otherwise had an opportunity to give consent. Should we erase this history? If not, why should the subjects in those photos have fewer rights than people should have today? If so, why? Before you think that something should be illegal you have to think about what that would actually mean.
  • cardanome 1y ago
    I find it strange how people consider taking pictures of strangers as some basic right. Here in Germany, people have a right to their own image. You can't just photograph strangers. You can photograph a crowd at a public event but you can't zoom in on one specific stranger. Also you can photograph people that are of public interest. Maybe it is me who is biased but I find these rules quite reasonable. It protects both my privacy while allowing photographers to do their job. If you want to photograph a stranger, ask for consent.
    • kelnos 1y ago
      > Maybe it is me who is biased Sure, and so am I. We're all biased toward what we are used to, especially if it's something we grew up with through childhood. While I think it'd be creepy for someone to sit outside, zooming in on strangers and taking photos of them, I don't think that sort of thing should be illegal. (Aside from when it might break other laws, like if it were to turn into harassment.) I do think it we should require consent before publishing a photo that focuses on individuals, at least for most uses (I'm sure there are exceptions). I don't think laws should try to spell out or enforce social norms (for the most part; again I'm sure there are exceptions I'd consider), and I think "don't be a creep with a camera" is a social norm, not a legal issue. > It protects [...] my privacy I just don't see getting photographed in public as a privacy issue, but I'll admit it depends on the "how". Dragnet surveillance with cameras on every corner is a privacy issue, but a single photographer with a manually-actuated camera is not. But really, what is it about someone having a photograph of you while you're in public that violates your privacy? It may "feel icky", but I don't see that as being a violation of anyone's rights. (Again, publishing a photo is IMO another matter.) At the risk of diving into whataboutism, it seems weird to me to object to public photography -- something that has many legitimate artistic and historical uses and benefits -- when many of us are subjected to pervasive surveillance, both of the governmental and capitalist kind.
      • cardanome 1y ago
        > Again, publishing a photo is IMO another matter. With analog photography this might be a useful distinction but with digital it is easy to leak that photo even without explicit intention to do so. Even if the intention was to never share my photo, it is likely to be automatically uploaded to Google Cloud or similar services. It can be hacked, it will end up as training data for some LLM and so on. It is more practical to stop the taking of the photo in the first place. > it seems weird to me to object to public photography No one does. Lots of people practice public photography in Germany. You just have to ask for consent if you want to photograph strangers. That is the point where I am lost an why this is even such a big deal for you. You can photograph the environment, you can photograph your friends, you can photograph anyone who wants to be photographed. Why would you even want to photograph someone why doesn't want their photo taken? Why not take a photo of the many people that would love to have their picture taken? > when many of us are subjected to pervasive surveillance, both of the governmental and capitalist kind. Germany has also much better laws in that regard as well. Sure it could be better enforced but the GDPR is super strong. As for surveillance, this is also more restricted here as well. There is definitely a push to make widespread surveillance more a thing but we are still far away from US levels. So yeah, both is bad.
• torginus 1y ago
  This gave me an idea - what if we made a stable diffusion based AI that would replace unimportant faces (and possibly other identifying details) with different ones - I have seen that AI can do this and make the change unnoticeable. That way people would be safe from having their personal likeness and whereabouts accidentally plastered over the internet (except when they want their photo to be taken), and the end result wouldn't look so obviously modified as blurring faces or licence plates.
  • vwcx 1y ago
    That's a solution that prioritizes privacy over reality, and I'm not sure we collectively want that. Mutilation of truth in the name of protection etc...
    • torginus 1y ago
      Yes that's a tradeoff - but I was thinking it would still be better than stuff like Google street view's mess of blurs.
      • WD-42 1y ago
        Is it better? At least you know it’s a real face under the blur.
      • kelnos 1y ago
        I don't think that's better. For something like Street View that's explicitly supposed to be capturing reality, I want to know when that reality has been censored. Realistic face replacement breaks that. (And yes, I'm sure Street View imagery is edited in other ways before it makes it to production, but I think it's important that our view of reality remains as real as possible.)
  • nameless912 1y ago
    Ah yes, because more AI will solve this problem. No, what we need is for people to feel safe in public again, for them to not feel like they're constantly one questionable picture away from their lives being ruined. Kill social media, kill gigantic public face tracking dragnets, kill privacy-invading capitalism.
• I_dream_of_Geni 1y ago
  Maybe this comes to mind? : "Astronomer CEO Andy Byron and chief people officer Kristin Cabot, who were caught on a Coldplay concert jumbotron hugging each other and then quickly recoiling when they realized they were on camera." They obviously didn't ask for that, and it was focused on them without their permission, and yet, here we are....
  • fooqux 1y ago
    > They obviously didn't ask for that, and it was focused on them without their permission, and yet, here we are.... The rule is: if you're in public you have no expectation of privacy. I think a debate on that rule would be interesting. My thought is that if I can't take a picture unless there's absolutely nobody else in the FOV, then that basically prohibits the vast majority of photographs.
    • rstuart4133 1y ago
      I also am a fan of the "expectation of privacy" rule. That's primarily because it makes it absolutely clear the public always has the right to record officials doing their job. So if you see a policeman murdering George Floyd in the street, or fellow shopper pushing an old woman out of the way, or a parent screaming abuse at an umpire, or even just someone littering in a national park there is no doubt you are allowed to record it. Yes, this means towards more surveillance, but it's a counter balance to the surveillance state. The state and large corporations put cameras everywhere. It seems odd to me that people get really upset by taking photos of them when there are likely numerous CCTV cameras already doing that 24 hours a day, in not so public places like offices. The "anyone can take photos in a public place" rule means Joe Citizen gets the same rights as the corporations and governments take for themselves. I'm in the minority though. The best illustration I've seen of the was a man take a photo of the cheer leaders at a big football game. He leaned over the fence and put his camera on the ground, taking the photo as the girl kicked her leg into the air. His actions where caught on the TV camera that was broadcasting that same girls crouch around the nation. The police prosecuted him because of the huge outcry. I'm can't recall what the outcome in court was, but I couldn't see how he could be breaking the photography rules given my country has the "expectation of privacy" rule.