Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The sticky issue of consent in street photography

dinalitovsky.bulletin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 292 posts

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#41

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

People who don't want their image taken by a stranger often confuse strong personal preferences with ethics. But for an action to transcend individual discomfort and enter the netherworld of immorality there has to be both a strong societal consensus as well as palpable, real-world harm resulting from it.

Working from the real-world harm angle I find non-consensual, bulk surveillance to be an active threat to individuals and society. One primary reason is it's increasing purpose as a tool for those in power to exert control over those who aren't.

Conversely the potential harms from candid photography are far less concerning. There have been times when a publicized photo is subject to bad choices by the public. Even that worst case scenario illustrates that individual photographers don't compare with the countless, coordinating agencies that impact millions of lives.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#42

Post by [deleted] »

kebman wrote: post #32
dymk wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your other option is the back button.

I'll tell you what is the other option: Digging through the code and extracting the information without accepting the blood contract, because people who are stupid enough to put something in the public sphere on the internet don't deserve respect when they treat their visitors with only one viable alternative.

[deleted]

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#43

Post by Planktonne »

hirundo wrote: post #13

Sometimes there is an engineering solution to a social problem. Rather than blurring faces software can now isolate them, downscale and then upscale them, such that they look like real people but don't actually exist. The photo doesn't look censored but the consent issue goes away. Then you just have to identify the faces that you want to keep. The same could be done with the brands and logos that randomly litter pho…

I don't think that's actually a solution, just a way of making the same underlying problem harder to spot.

In general, I am extremely distrustful of this as an idea:

> Sometimes there is an engineering solution to a social problem.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#44

Post by rlpb »

kebman wrote: post #19

But when you're informed about cookies when entering the site, the only option is "I accept". Not unlike walking in a public space, where it's is, and should be, legal to photograph anyone. (And no, the back button is not a meaningful other option.)

People conflate clicking on a button that says "I accept" with some kind of moral or legal obligation or agreement. One doesn't necessarily mean the other. In the EU, for example, if there wasn't the option to decline, then no permission is being given even if you click on "I accept".

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#45

Post by b3morales »

arprocter wrote: post #24
ivanstojic wrote: post #7

I always found this issue to be confusing. There are literally hundreds of cameras tracking me every day: in the parking lot, in front of the ATM, when I buy my groceries… I have no ability to know when I’m being recorded or what happens to those recordings. Yet some people are upset if they get photographed by a human photographer in a public space. Is the only difference that the photo was taken with intent?

Seems to me the objections come from assuming bad intent of the photographer A little apples to oranges, but I get the feeling the same folks who are against being photographed in public are probably pro police bodycams And how far and widely do they apply this? Sailor kiss in Times Sq comes to mind. Shots of the crowd at a sporting event? And then there's war photography...

> A little apples to oranges, but I get the feeling the same folks who are against being photographed in public are probably pro police bodycams

The reasoning is not contradictory as you imply at the end; it is indeed apples and oranges. The "pro police bodycam" position is for capturing the actions of the person wearing it, protecting the camera's subject by adding accountability. The point is for the recording to be available as a public record in case of a problem, not for the officer to be able to use it.

A random videographer on the street does not have anything like the same relationship with their captured subjects, and is probably not making a record that is positive for the recorded person (or the public).

And that's to say nothing of private surveillance cameras; the difference there should be obvious.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#46

Post by Wowfunhappy »

kebman wrote: post #30
yosito wrote: post #9

I studied video production in college. For one project, I did a documentary on a non-profit that was working in a high-crime area. We drove down the street with a video camera pointed out the window * As we drove by a house with some young men on the porch, one of them saw the camera and yelled angrily, "Yo, what the fuck!" and started chasing us. After that experience, I've never been able to point my camera at some…

It is generally a smart idea to get consent first, especially if the imagery is intended for monetized use, such as ads and posters, especially since such use can result in law suits if done without consent. The one thing that might outweigh this general rule, is if something newsworthy happens, or something that would be deemed important for the public to see, such as a crime. Where I'm from (Norway) the general rul…

> The one thing that might outweigh this general rule, is if something newsworthy happens, or something that would be deemed important for the public to see, such as a crime.

It actually sounds like that isn’t required in the US.

https://dinalitovsky.bulletin.com/590041038798261

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#47

Post by mannykannot »

ivanstojic wrote: post #7

I always found this issue to be confusing. There are literally hundreds of cameras tracking me every day: in the parking lot, in front of the ATM, when I buy my groceries… I have no ability to know when I’m being recorded or what happens to those recordings. Yet some people are upset if they get photographed by a human photographer in a public space. Is the only difference that the photo was taken with intent?

One should not assume that those who are not keen on being photographed in public are unconcerned by the high level if institutional snooping, or that they have always felt this way. What has changed is the environment.

Until relatively recently, there was comparatively little institutional snooping going on, and most of that was not disseminated: for the most part, it stayed where it was taken for a couple of weeks, then the tapes were overwritten. These days, it is likely to last forever, and make its way into the hands of those companies that have made it their business to find out everything about us.

Similarly, when someone takes a snapshot on the street, it is very likely to be sucked up into the cloud. Even though I have no account with Facebook, I have little doubt that it can recognize me in the background of other people's pictures, and has a file on my whereabouts and activities.

Therefore, the issue is not the taking of the pictures per se, but the use they are put to by third parties. While I do not spend much time worrying about what could happen as a consequence, I sure do not like it, and I don't think I should have to justify that dislike.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#48

Post by sam0x17 »

bambax wrote: post #37
ivanstojic wrote: post #7

I always found this issue to be confusing. There are literally hundreds of cameras tracking me every day: in the parking lot, in front of the ATM, when I buy my groceries… I have no ability to know when I’m being recorded or what happens to those recordings. Yet some people are upset if they get photographed by a human photographer in a public space. Is the only difference that the photo was taken with intent?

I am strongly in favor of the right to photograph anything and anybody in public places, but from a moral/ethical/legal point of view, "intent" is indeed everything. You make it sound like it would be secondary and not really relevant, but for example, intent is the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter. In candid street photography, I think what people fear is exactly that: bad intent, a willingness…

> In candid street photography, I think what people fear is exactly that: bad intent, a willingness of the photographer to exploit the images in order to show ridicule or maybe even obtain sexual gratification.

That cuts both ways though -- I would be much more worried about the "intent" of someone looking up my face in particular and/or storing a database of millions of face-recognized surveillance videos than any possible malintent a human photographer could have. The former has much more potential for sinister outcomes originating from sinister intents.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#49

Post by bastardoperator »

Streets/Subways are public, you have no expectation of privacy in public. Consent is implied. If you go into publicly accessible areas you will be on camera.

However, a professional photographer despite knowing this would have asked for additional consent given the nature and subjects of the photo and their intentions on how the photo will be used.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#50

Post by rocqua »

Tomte wrote: post #12
ivanstojic wrote: post #7

I always found this issue to be confusing. There are literally hundreds of cameras tracking me every day: in the parking lot, in front of the ATM, when I buy my groceries… I have no ability to know when I’m being recorded or what happens to those recordings. Yet some people are upset if they get photographed by a human photographer in a public space. Is the only difference that the photo was taken with intent?

CCTV footage doesn't go viral, and my social circle won't see it. I find it hard to understand that people in this thread see no problem there. You can still believe that photographers should have every right to take photos (and legally they do, so there's nothing to discuss about the status quo), but you need to address this point, even if only by summarily dismissing it.

What situations of a photo going viral do you consider bad enough to consider blanket banning? Are those nit already illegal as libel or whatever it is that makes upskirt photos illegal?
Post reply on HN