4 ms·

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

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.
  - thegrimmest 1y ago
    I’m not sure I agree that consent should be a requirement for photographing people in public. You have a right to observe people in public. You have a right to take notes about these people and publish them. You have a right to hire a person to sit in a public place and record their observations, and to publish these to your heart’s content. Technologically augmenting these rights does not change them. A pen and paper to record observations is a technological augmentation to memory and recall. A newspaper is an augmentation to a gossip corner. A camera is just the same. A person should be able to record and retransmit any information they come across in public, regardless of technology, since ownership of an observation is fundamentally the observer’s.
    - cardanome 1y ago
      > You have a right to observe people in public. You have a right to take notes about these people and publish them. Not completely. If you keep staring at me, following me around and taking notes I am going to call the police even if you keep to public spaces. While it is not illegal to stare at people I would strongly advice you to not do so. You will find that some people will react quite badly to it. > You have a right to hire a person to sit in a public place and record their observations, and to publish these to your heart’s content. No, you can't. They can write about the people they saw in general terms but once you publish information that directly identifies me and contains personal information about me, I am gonna sue you. Might vary depending on country though. People are making such high level philosophical argument about why they should be allowed to photograph strangers but no one answers why. It is hard for me to come up with any non malicious reason. Sure, maybe you just like photography but then again photograph people that consent to it. Not to mention even if you legally can, I doubt that running around photographing strangers will gain you any positive reputation. In practice you are well advised to ask for consent anyway.
      - thegrimmest 1y ago
        > You will find that some people will react quite badly to it It’s a good thing we have laws, courts, and prisons for people who can’t control themselves. > once you publish information that directly identifies me and contains personal information about me, I am gonna sue you For what? What right of yours have I violated by retransmitting publicly available information about you? Presumably this right of yours would also be infringed if I gossiped about you? I agree it’s not a polite thing to do, but rights only count when they protect contentious actions. > It is hard for me to come up with any non malicious reason Free people don’t need to justify their actions. Your country may infringe on your rights, but that doesn’t invalidate the assertion they exist. Freedom of speech and the consequential freedom of the press are fundamental to a free society. Having to justify yourself when you’re not harming anyone is tyrannical.
bborud 1y ago
Correction: you have to distinguish between taking photos and publishing them. You are generally not probibited from photographing individuals in Germany. The limits generally only apply to publication.

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.
- thegrimmest 1y ago
  I’m not sure I agree that consent should be a requirement for photographing people in public. You have a right to observe people in public. You have a right to take notes about these people and publish them. You have a right to hire a person to sit in a public place and record their observations, and to publish these to your heart’s content. Technologically augmenting these rights does not change them. A pen and paper to record observations is a technological augmentation to memory and recall. A newspaper is an augmentation to a gossip corner. A camera is just the same. A person should be able to record and retransmit any information they come across in public, regardless of technology, since ownership of an observation is fundamentally the observer’s.
  - cardanome 1y ago
    > You have a right to observe people in public. You have a right to take notes about these people and publish them. Not completely. If you keep staring at me, following me around and taking notes I am going to call the police even if you keep to public spaces. While it is not illegal to stare at people I would strongly advice you to not do so. You will find that some people will react quite badly to it. > You have a right to hire a person to sit in a public place and record their observations, and to publish these to your heart’s content. No, you can't. They can write about the people they saw in general terms but once you publish information that directly identifies me and contains personal information about me, I am gonna sue you. Might vary depending on country though. People are making such high level philosophical argument about why they should be allowed to photograph strangers but no one answers why. It is hard for me to come up with any non malicious reason. Sure, maybe you just like photography but then again photograph people that consent to it. Not to mention even if you legally can, I doubt that running around photographing strangers will gain you any positive reputation. In practice you are well advised to ask for consent anyway.
    - thegrimmest 1y ago
      > You will find that some people will react quite badly to it It’s a good thing we have laws, courts, and prisons for people who can’t control themselves. > once you publish information that directly identifies me and contains personal information about me, I am gonna sue you For what? What right of yours have I violated by retransmitting publicly available information about you? Presumably this right of yours would also be infringed if I gossiped about you? I agree it’s not a polite thing to do, but rights only count when they protect contentious actions. > It is hard for me to come up with any non malicious reason Free people don’t need to justify their actions. Your country may infringe on your rights, but that doesn’t invalidate the assertion they exist. Freedom of speech and the consequential freedom of the press are fundamental to a free society. Having to justify yourself when you’re not harming anyone is tyrannical.

bborud 1y ago

Correction: you have to distinguish between taking photos and publishing them. You are generally not probibited from photographing individuals in Germany. The limits generally only apply to publication.