4 ms·

If I secretly hide a camera in your bedroom, would the violation of privacy be made more egregious if I then went ahead and broadcast that footage on TV? >Isn’

by l23k4 5mo ago

If I secretly hide a camera in your bedroom, would the violation of privacy be made more egregious if I then went ahead and broadcast that footage on TV? >Isn’t it just you have a window to look in or not? And every building has windows to look in if you choose to not draw the blinds? For example, there would be a pretty big difference between my neighbour being able to see into my apartment and my neighbour organising tour groups to look into my apartment. I don't mind my neighbour, it is reasonable to expect that my neighbours will be able to see into my apartment. I however could not reasonably expect that my neighbours would host some sort of organised viewing activity on a regular basis.

cindyllm 5mo ago
[dead]
bix6 5mo ago
Well maybe don’t live in a city if you don’t want people to see in your house? I mean seriously floor to ceiling windows.. what the f do you expect?
- senordevnyc 5mo ago
  Actually, sounds like they had a much better solution than moving out of the city: they appealed to a judge, who agreed with them. Sounds like you’re the one out of step with reality here.
- l23k4 5mo ago
  I don't mind people seeing into my flat. I would very much mind the specific, egregious behaviour described in the court case.
  - bix6 5mo ago
    Which is exactly why you wouldn’t build your house with floor to ceiling windows next to a museum.
    - l23k4 4mo ago
      The museum only decided to start encouraging the egregious behavior after the flats were built. The museum knew the egregious behavior by their guests was taking place and did not intervene until forced to do so by the courts. I really don't see how you can read through the court judgements and not arrive at the conclusion that the Tate just really went out of their way to look cartoonishly evil.
      - bix6 4mo ago
        You are saying that the Tate specifically encouraged people to take pictures of those flats? The text you linked me to does not say that.
        l23k4 4mo ago
        I'm not saying the Tate specifically encouraged people to take pictures of those flats. I'm saying the Tate encouraged people to take pictures of those flats. They put up a viewing platform where the flats were one of the main events.
        bix6 4mo ago
        So building a balcony makes you cartoonishly evil?
        l23k4 4mo ago
        It's the way they acted after they became aware of the problem that makes them look cartoonishly evil.
dgellow 5mo ago
Isn't it on the individuals occupying the apartment to use curtains of some sort if they don't want to be seen? Unless I'm missing context the museum didn't organize tour groups to specially look into the apartments
- l23k4 5mo ago
  > Isn't it on the individuals occupying the apartment to use curtains of some sort if they don't want to be seen? Sure, but the problem here was explicitly not the individuals occupying the apartments being seen. >Unless I'm missing context the museum didn't organize tour groups to specially look into the apartments From the court ruling: "Visitors in the viewing gallery frequently look into the claimants' flats and take photographs, and less frequently view the claimants and their flats with binoculars." "Photographs of the flats are posted on social media by visitors. On the platform Instagram there were 124 posts in the period between June 2016 and April 2018" I do not think it's acceptable to subject anyone to this, be they rich or poor.
  - dgellow 5mo ago
    I did read that part, I still do not see how that justifies closing the museum terrace. The people photographing and sharing online pictures from the flat isn’t on the museum. Make the museum forbid to take pictures from the terrace if that’s the main source of concern. The museum didn’t create the terrace with the intent to showcase the inside of the flats as far as I can tell, it seems they had the permit to build it before the building existed.
    - l23k4 5mo ago
      Of course it's on the museum, this was an entirely predictable outcome.
      - roryirvine 5mo ago
        And, as I understand it, it was the Tate's initial failure to do anything to restrain their visitors that caused the Supreme Court to decide as they did. It's worth noting that it has since re-opened - but access to the side directly overlooking the flats is restricted, and there are now signs asking visitors not to take intrusive photos: https://www.timeout.com/london/news/the-tate-modern-has-reopened-its-majestic-tenth-floor-viewing-gallery-090623 https://www.timeout.com/london/news/the-tate-modern-has-reop...

by l23k4 5mo ago

cindyllm 5mo ago

[dead]

bix6 5mo ago

Well maybe don’t live in a city if you don’t want people to see in your house? I mean seriously floor to ceiling windows.. what the f do you expect?

senordevnyc 5mo ago
Actually, sounds like they had a much better solution than moving out of the city: they appealed to a judge, who agreed with them. Sounds like you’re the one out of step with reality here.
l23k4 5mo ago
I don't mind people seeing into my flat. I would very much mind the specific, egregious behaviour described in the court case.
- bix6 5mo ago
  Which is exactly why you wouldn’t build your house with floor to ceiling windows next to a museum.
  - l23k4 4mo ago
    The museum only decided to start encouraging the egregious behavior after the flats were built. The museum knew the egregious behavior by their guests was taking place and did not intervene until forced to do so by the courts. I really don't see how you can read through the court judgements and not arrive at the conclusion that the Tate just really went out of their way to look cartoonishly evil.
    - bix6 4mo ago
      You are saying that the Tate specifically encouraged people to take pictures of those flats? The text you linked me to does not say that.
      - l23k4 4mo ago
        I'm not saying the Tate specifically encouraged people to take pictures of those flats. I'm saying the Tate encouraged people to take pictures of those flats. They put up a viewing platform where the flats were one of the main events.
        bix6 4mo ago
        So building a balcony makes you cartoonishly evil?
        l23k4 4mo ago
        It's the way they acted after they became aware of the problem that makes them look cartoonishly evil.

dgellow 5mo ago

Isn't it on the individuals occupying the apartment to use curtains of some sort if they don't want to be seen? Unless I'm missing context the museum didn't organize tour groups to specially look into the apartments

l23k4 5mo ago
> Isn't it on the individuals occupying the apartment to use curtains of some sort if they don't want to be seen? Sure, but the problem here was explicitly not the individuals occupying the apartments being seen. >Unless I'm missing context the museum didn't organize tour groups to specially look into the apartments From the court ruling: "Visitors in the viewing gallery frequently look into the claimants' flats and take photographs, and less frequently view the claimants and their flats with binoculars." "Photographs of the flats are posted on social media by visitors. On the platform Instagram there were 124 posts in the period between June 2016 and April 2018" I do not think it's acceptable to subject anyone to this, be they rich or poor.
- dgellow 5mo ago
  I did read that part, I still do not see how that justifies closing the museum terrace. The people photographing and sharing online pictures from the flat isn’t on the museum. Make the museum forbid to take pictures from the terrace if that’s the main source of concern. The museum didn’t create the terrace with the intent to showcase the inside of the flats as far as I can tell, it seems they had the permit to build it before the building existed.
  - l23k4 5mo ago
    Of course it's on the museum, this was an entirely predictable outcome.
    - roryirvine 5mo ago
      And, as I understand it, it was the Tate's initial failure to do anything to restrain their visitors that caused the Supreme Court to decide as they did. It's worth noting that it has since re-opened - but access to the side directly overlooking the flats is restricted, and there are now signs asking visitors not to take intrusive photos: https://www.timeout.com/london/news/the-tate-modern-has-reopened-its-majestic-tenth-floor-viewing-gallery-090623 https://www.timeout.com/london/news/the-tate-modern-has-reop...