6 ms·

> But my personal opinion is, that this attitude is rather selfish. Public photography is cultural preservation and anthropological ethnography. Asking folks t

> 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.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      I don’t mean to direct anything at anyone, other than my viewfinder. I believe in home rule, and not dictates from bureaucrats. As a sort of journalist, I’m going to keep taking pictures, and to keep writing journals. Anything less or different would be to be someone other than myself the best and only way I know how, and that isn’t being true to myself or to others. If you felt that I directed my comments at you, I apologize; I almost certainly wasn’t. If anything, I am directing them at myself, as an affirmation of what I believe and why. Freedom of expression is one of the few issues that I will take a principled stance on, and if you feel that I was directing my comment at you, I don’t mean to, though you are free to express whatever you feel led to if you feel that I have given you short shrift or unalloyed fire, friendly or otherwise.
- bborud 1y ago
  Well, there is also the fact that in a lot of cities, you will be filmed, often by multiple cameras, most of the time, without you being aware of it. By law enforcement, security cameras (private and otherwise), cars etc. on top of that you carry around a phone that streams intimate information about your location, behavior, preferences to a bunch of data aggregators. And then there are the signal surveillance networks that are peppered around your environment as your phone shouts traceable signals to your surroundings. (Heck, you can set up a a RPi with a few ESP32s hooked up to dump wifi probe frames, cross reference the networks phones scan for and create a map of where people come from by cross referencing wardriving data. Lots of ISPs make it easy by giving people wireless routers with unique network names. And from there you can figure out things like «someone living at address X is at location Y. People who live at X work for Z and location Y is the office of a competitor». And that’s just by collecting one kind of wifi frame and correlating a bunch of publicly available information) Privacy is dead. Someone taking pictures hardly even registers.
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    I agree we're already in a bad place but I don't find the "ship has sailed" take particularly engaging. Addressing nothing because everything can't be addressed isn't a great strategy for change.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      > Addressing nothing because everything can't be addressed isn't a great strategy for change. Presupposing that some strategies for change are less suitable than others is no argument against the status quo, either. Sometimes the way things are is just the way folks in a given time and place do things, and is simply contingent as much as it’s worthwhile. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. If you don’t like the way things are done here, you either care to make a change, including hearts and minds, or you don’t. If you aren’t from here, that might be an uphill battle, perhaps even both ways: coming and going. It’s a kind of double standard to judge folks for their customs without wanting to do the work to disabuse them of their notions, lest they warn you not to let the door hit you on your way out, especially after it was opened unto you in the first place. Wanting to have it both ways is a sort of special pleading.
- rocqua 1y ago
  There's legally usually quite a big gap between what pictures you can take of people, and how you can publish them. In places where you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, you can generally be photographed. But there are significant limits to how such pictures can be published (including social media).
  - sbarre 1y ago
    The law doesn't matter much if someone is convicted in the public square by intentionally misrepresented (or even just context-collapsed) images of them going viral to a global audience at Internet speed. By the time the law, or the terms and conditions of social networks, catches up, the damage is already done.
    - bborud 1y ago
      This is a double edged sword. Two good events that should make us think about this are the Charlie Kirk funeral and the No Kings protest. The former was a relatively small event broadcast live. The latter was a huge protest involving more people than the populations of some small countries. However, their media footprint was very different. The No Kings protest produced no iconic visuals and was rapidly forgotten by international media. It had considerably less staying power than, say, the arab spring. Arguably because there existed no compelling visuals. It might as well have been a small protest of 100k people for the footprint it occupies in international consciousness. The Charlie Kirk funeral, on the other hand, produced half a dozen memorable images that circulated for weeks. It bears thinking about.
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.

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.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    I don’t mean to direct anything at anyone, other than my viewfinder. I believe in home rule, and not dictates from bureaucrats. As a sort of journalist, I’m going to keep taking pictures, and to keep writing journals. Anything less or different would be to be someone other than myself the best and only way I know how, and that isn’t being true to myself or to others. If you felt that I directed my comments at you, I apologize; I almost certainly wasn’t. If anything, I am directing them at myself, as an affirmation of what I believe and why. Freedom of expression is one of the few issues that I will take a principled stance on, and if you feel that I was directing my comment at you, I don’t mean to, though you are free to express whatever you feel led to if you feel that I have given you short shrift or unalloyed fire, friendly or otherwise.
bborud 1y ago
Well, there is also the fact that in a lot of cities, you will be filmed, often by multiple cameras, most of the time, without you being aware of it. By law enforcement, security cameras (private and otherwise), cars etc. on top of that you carry around a phone that streams intimate information about your location, behavior, preferences to a bunch of data aggregators. And then there are the signal surveillance networks that are peppered around your environment as your phone shouts traceable signals to your surroundings. (Heck, you can set up a a RPi with a few ESP32s hooked up to dump wifi probe frames, cross reference the networks phones scan for and create a map of where people come from by cross referencing wardriving data. Lots of ISPs make it easy by giving people wireless routers with unique network names. And from there you can figure out things like «someone living at address X is at location Y. People who live at X work for Z and location Y is the office of a competitor». And that’s just by collecting one kind of wifi frame and correlating a bunch of publicly available information) Privacy is dead. Someone taking pictures hardly even registers.
- rkomorn 1y ago
  I agree we're already in a bad place but I don't find the "ship has sailed" take particularly engaging. Addressing nothing because everything can't be addressed isn't a great strategy for change.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    > Addressing nothing because everything can't be addressed isn't a great strategy for change. Presupposing that some strategies for change are less suitable than others is no argument against the status quo, either. Sometimes the way things are is just the way folks in a given time and place do things, and is simply contingent as much as it’s worthwhile. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. If you don’t like the way things are done here, you either care to make a change, including hearts and minds, or you don’t. If you aren’t from here, that might be an uphill battle, perhaps even both ways: coming and going. It’s a kind of double standard to judge folks for their customs without wanting to do the work to disabuse them of their notions, lest they warn you not to let the door hit you on your way out, especially after it was opened unto you in the first place. Wanting to have it both ways is a sort of special pleading.
rocqua 1y ago
There's legally usually quite a big gap between what pictures you can take of people, and how you can publish them. In places where you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, you can generally be photographed. But there are significant limits to how such pictures can be published (including social media).
- sbarre 1y ago
  The law doesn't matter much if someone is convicted in the public square by intentionally misrepresented (or even just context-collapsed) images of them going viral to a global audience at Internet speed. By the time the law, or the terms and conditions of social networks, catches up, the damage is already done.
  - bborud 1y ago
    This is a double edged sword. Two good events that should make us think about this are the Charlie Kirk funeral and the No Kings protest. The former was a relatively small event broadcast live. The latter was a huge protest involving more people than the populations of some small countries. However, their media footprint was very different. The No Kings protest produced no iconic visuals and was rapidly forgotten by international media. It had considerably less staying power than, say, the arab spring. Arguably because there existed no compelling visuals. It might as well have been a small protest of 100k people for the footprint it occupies in international consciousness. The Charlie Kirk funeral, on the other hand, produced half a dozen memorable images that circulated for weeks. It bears thinking about.

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.