4 ms·

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

by 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.
    - rkomorn 1y ago
      Photography is my favorite art form to consume, so I'm not in favor of any kind of ban of it. I also agree that freedom to photograph is a free speech issue. I just happen to think the ability to live your life without having it being recorded everywhere is also a freedom issue. I think it's a challenge for us to solve and I don't pretend to have a solution. I just don't agree with a "change nothing" stance on grounds of "no expectation of privacy" because I think things have changed to a point that it needs to be addressed. Side note: > I think it’s a mistake for others in different jurisdictions to tell those subject to those norms how they ought to live. If that's directed at me, then I think you're reading something in my comment that I haven't expressed.
      - 1y ago
- krior 1y ago
  > public spaces aren’t considered private by virtue of them being shared and nonexclusive. I live in a country where photographing people in public is highly restricted. The reason is that 99% of people cannot avoid public places in their day-to-day lives, therefore public places cannot be a free-for-all.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    > therefore public places cannot be a free-for-all. They can’t in those places with the restrictions you are familiar with and are subject to, but that is no argument against the norms of other places and the denizens thereof. I can, and do see public spaces as a free-for-all, and that is neither better nor worse, but simply the way we do things here. If you don’t like it, it doesn’t affect you. Most folks are aware, and make a mental note of such things from a young age. If we don’t like it that way, we have avenues to change the way we relate to each other in public by changing the laws and regulations that govern public photography. That society hasn’t reached a consensus on this and other issues is fine. Variety is the spice of life, and the spice must flow.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - aspenmayer 1y ago
        Hi!
- lynx97 1y ago
  I find the comparison with deaf people re concerts is pretty inappropriate. If you take a picture of me without me knowing/my consent, you carry that picture "home" and maybe even upload it to some public site. Heck, you could even upload it to 4chan and make a ton of fun of me. "Look at that stupid disabled guy", or whatever you and your friends end up doing. That is a complete different game. Disabilities are pretty different from eachother, and throwing deaf and blind people into a pot just because both are disabled is a very cheap and mindless act.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    I didn’t make fun of you, though. I’m saying it’s not your right to complain about things you don’t know about if you don’t suffer harm, even and especially if you come to know about them. People make fun of other people for reasons or in the absence of them. For you to make a logical leap to imply I’m saying it’s okay to make fun of people, or saying that having a disability is a slight, or blameworthy, or deserving scorn or mockery, is to put words in my mouth. I’ve known deaf people who love going to concerts. They perceive the thrumming of the bass and the stomp of the crowd. They see the smiles and throw up their hands, and deaf folks are able to carry on a conversation by signing better than most folks who are hearing, especially when the music is turned up to 11. I’m more concerned with what might happen to assistive technologies meant to be used in public by low-vision and (legally or fully) blind users if public photography bans are passed than I am about any other passing concerns about being photographed in public, to be honest.
    - lynx97 1y ago
      The "you" in my writing was refering to any photographer who takes a picture of me without my consent. I should probably mave made that clearer. IOW, I am not suggesting that you in particular are making fun of me or anyone you photograph. But since we were talking about strangers, I have no way of knowing how that photoographer will act. Sure, you in particular probably have a morale compass. However, in the general case, there is no way for me to know if the stranger taking a photo of me is a bad actor or not. And therefore, I oppose the "right" for anyone to do that, simply because I can never know what they will end up doing with that photo.
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.

by lynx97 1y ago

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.
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    Photography is my favorite art form to consume, so I'm not in favor of any kind of ban of it. I also agree that freedom to photograph is a free speech issue. I just happen to think the ability to live your life without having it being recorded everywhere is also a freedom issue. I think it's a challenge for us to solve and I don't pretend to have a solution. I just don't agree with a "change nothing" stance on grounds of "no expectation of privacy" because I think things have changed to a point that it needs to be addressed. Side note: > I think it’s a mistake for others in different jurisdictions to tell those subject to those norms how they ought to live. If that's directed at me, then I think you're reading something in my comment that I haven't expressed.
    - 1y ago
krior 1y ago
> public spaces aren’t considered private by virtue of them being shared and nonexclusive. I live in a country where photographing people in public is highly restricted. The reason is that 99% of people cannot avoid public places in their day-to-day lives, therefore public places cannot be a free-for-all.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  > therefore public places cannot be a free-for-all. They can’t in those places with the restrictions you are familiar with and are subject to, but that is no argument against the norms of other places and the denizens thereof. I can, and do see public spaces as a free-for-all, and that is neither better nor worse, but simply the way we do things here. If you don’t like it, it doesn’t affect you. Most folks are aware, and make a mental note of such things from a young age. If we don’t like it that way, we have avenues to change the way we relate to each other in public by changing the laws and regulations that govern public photography. That society hasn’t reached a consensus on this and other issues is fine. Variety is the spice of life, and the spice must flow.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      Hi!
lynx97 1y ago
I find the comparison with deaf people re concerts is pretty inappropriate. If you take a picture of me without me knowing/my consent, you carry that picture "home" and maybe even upload it to some public site. Heck, you could even upload it to 4chan and make a ton of fun of me. "Look at that stupid disabled guy", or whatever you and your friends end up doing. That is a complete different game. Disabilities are pretty different from eachother, and throwing deaf and blind people into a pot just because both are disabled is a very cheap and mindless act.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  I didn’t make fun of you, though. I’m saying it’s not your right to complain about things you don’t know about if you don’t suffer harm, even and especially if you come to know about them. People make fun of other people for reasons or in the absence of them. For you to make a logical leap to imply I’m saying it’s okay to make fun of people, or saying that having a disability is a slight, or blameworthy, or deserving scorn or mockery, is to put words in my mouth. I’ve known deaf people who love going to concerts. They perceive the thrumming of the bass and the stomp of the crowd. They see the smiles and throw up their hands, and deaf folks are able to carry on a conversation by signing better than most folks who are hearing, especially when the music is turned up to 11. I’m more concerned with what might happen to assistive technologies meant to be used in public by low-vision and (legally or fully) blind users if public photography bans are passed than I am about any other passing concerns about being photographed in public, to be honest.
  - lynx97 1y ago
    The "you" in my writing was refering to any photographer who takes a picture of me without my consent. I should probably mave made that clearer. IOW, I am not suggesting that you in particular are making fun of me or anyone you photograph. But since we were talking about strangers, I have no way of knowing how that photoographer will act. Sure, you in particular probably have a morale compass. However, in the general case, there is no way for me to know if the stranger taking a photo of me is a bad actor or not. And therefore, I oppose the "right" for anyone to do that, simply because I can never know what they will end up doing with that photo.

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.