151–160 of 292 posts
This made me think - and I've still not managed to produce a coherent viewpoint. Closest I can come up with is that there's some sort of asymmetric 'value' that sometimes appears from nowhere and this throws us off a bit. As people have mentioned, security cameras are filming me all the time - and I've no issue with that. My image has no value. It's one amongst billions of frames taken, that will be ultimately wiped,…
This made me think - and I've still not managed to produce a coherent viewpoint. Closest I can come up with is that there's some sort of asymmetric 'value' that sometimes appears from nowhere and this throws us off a bit. As people have mentioned, security cameras are filming me all the time - and I've no issue with that. My image has no value. It's one amongst billions of frames taken, that will be ultimately wiped,…
Value can be created without it being “taken” from anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I'm in the same boat as em-bee - I am not ok with security cameras in public[1], or with public-facing doorbell cameras, either. My thought is basically: if a camera is recording the public, the public should have access to the recording. That isn't generally the case, so I'm not ok with it. [1] Note that by "public" I mean cameras facing streets, sidewalks, etc. I can alway…
I disagree with this. I consider the human eye a camera. It also saves videos in a storage medium that doesn't permit deletion. I don't distinguish between a silicon-based camera and a carbon-based camera. To me they're just different rows of the periodic table. In fact I even hope to think that one day silicon-based cameras can be used to restore vision to carbon-based beings that have non-functioning carbon-based c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it’s not yours. You don’t own your “image”, just like you don’t own your DNA. It’s not reasonable to expect to require permission for someone to use your image that they captured. What if it’s for news purposes? What if it’s related to, say, and insurance fraud investigation? If you keep trying to draw the line, it gets harder and harder to draw. So what’s reasonable? If you have an expectation of privacy that’s…
> But if you do not, i.e. you are in public, What if you're on the street outside an HIV clinic? Or an abortion clinic? Or an STI clinic? Or a substance misuse clinic? Or a narcotics anonymous meeting? What if you're on the street, but have clearly just exited the door from that clinic? This isn't idle noodling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v_MGN_Ltd
So there is a specific legal cutout for those cases.
The legal system is not usually made up of complete idiots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The basis of privacy rights in the US is the expectation of privacy. No one can claim an expectation of privacy in public. That image may be of you but you have no claim to it, as you didn’t take it.
That's what I mean. It's very surprising that exposing oneself to the public (as is unavoidable to do most things in life) warrants a loss of freedom to privacy. Effectively, the only people who get anonymity and a semblance of public privacy are those who can afford it, and not just anyone. Writing this out, it makes a lot more sense. The US is known for allowing certain rights and privileges to those who can afford…
This will be an unpopular opinion but I feel someone taking a photo with me as the subject without my permission is almost on par with assault It feels like a huge invasion of my personal space, regardless of whether or not the photographer is in my face or not.
I'm genuinely interested and not trying to make any particular point.
While people are constantly under surveillance of street cameras. While people are constantly under surveillance by their own phones and all kinds of apps. While people are constantly under surveillance during any internet activity . While most people agree to have computers that are not completely open which means no complete inspection of firmware and software including OS which means zero privacy by definition. Wh…
Can I take your picture in a public space? A picture of your kids? Your kids in their bathing suits at the pool? Everyone draws the line, and at a different point. It's not boolean.
It absolutely is boolean for some people. If I'm in a public space w/o an expectation of privacy you have every right to photograph me. Same goes for my daughter, bathing-suit or street-clothes. I value the right of others to make photos in public spaces and I recognize that it applies to me as a subject.
While people are constantly under surveillance of street cameras. While people are constantly under surveillance by their own phones and all kinds of apps. While people are constantly under surveillance during any internet activity . While most people agree to have computers that are not completely open which means no complete inspection of firmware and software including OS which means zero privacy by definition. Wh…
I have a feeling the people who will confront a photographer taking their picture, will be very quick on the draw to film the whole ordeal with their own camera. Regardless of consents.
While it's perfectly legal to take a photo of me in public, I own the "copyright" to my own image, can someone make money off it?
And if not my image what if I am wearing clothing that are my own creation, my mugshot might be fair game, but is the copyright of my clothing "Fair use"?