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

171–180 of 292 posts

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#171

Post by aaroninsf »

lovelyviking wrote: post #150

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…

This is the best comment I've read on HN in a good while.

Photography and consent here appear to be a logical example of what Umberto Eco called the hyper-real, the thing that is a supersaturated version of itself which draws the eye, thereby distracting from the ubiquity of the more discreet (yet totalizing) examples of the same thing in the environment–usually serving the interests of accumulated power. The shadow side of the McGuffin, with an operational adaptation: by being visible, they reassure the viewer of their ability to discern and mark their presence... and the viewer with false confidence overlooks the more pertinent examples everywhere else.

Versions of this bait-and-distract are everywhere in contemporary discourse. This is now a stock tactic of rhetoricians and demagogues, and there are dozen variations on it.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#172

Post by blitzar »

boardwaalk wrote: post #140
dheera wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We’re living in the present, not some cybernetic future. To say all this when it’s not relevant to the present is a little silly in my view. We don’t have cameras and flash embedded in ourselves, someone’s recollections are not the same as an video file in terms of evidence, and there’s a substantial difference between someone actively on the street corner watching and security camera you can set and forget which wil…

The human eye, with or without a cybernetic enhancement is admissible in court. Indeed 'eye witness' testimony, despite being horribly unreliable is particularly powerful in court.

Personally I see little to no difference between human eyes and film eyes when one is standing in the middle of the street 50 years ago, let alone now with some implied cybernetics that make the difference actually zero.

If the argument is that a snapshot can not be observed as a collection of light wa eves hitting cellulose, or a digital sesnsor then one has to ask the question if allow the receptors in the human eyeball to detect the reflections of light is acceptable either.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#173

Post by kurthr »

sudobash1 wrote: post #165
kurthr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree for figures in public places, but taking a years worth of pictures through a window (from a public place into a private place) is also protected by law (from the article). Is it OK to video/telephoto photograph from a rooftop through a window above the curtains into a shower of a naked person (over 18) and sell those on the internet along with the person's name and address? What about using deep IR to see thr…

According to the article, deep IR would be illegal: > Spying into someone's private space with specialized equipment or a drone is illegal.

But a 50MP sensor, with tripod and 800mm telephoto... not specialized. At some point intent has to play a roll.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#174

Post by V__ »

lovelyviking wrote: post #150

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'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. This sound like whataboutism to me.

First, most people just don't know how much they are under surveillance, and it's not like the pushback against this data gathering isn't already there. Especially in Europe.

Second, the chance of the data, which is collected on you, to be seen by thousands (or maybe millions) of people is pretty small. Even in a case of a data breach, you will be drowned out in millions of datasets (Except if you're a vip). A photography which can easily be shared may ruin your life.

Those two aren't really comparable. I think a discussion is therefore warranted.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#175

Post by bluefirebrand »

remus wrote: post #156
bluefirebrand wrote: post #95

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.

Would you feel the same way if someone did a painting of the same scene from memory? What if they were particularly adept at creating photorealistic paintings? How about if someone wrote a very vivid description of the same scene? Would you feel the same way? I'm genuinely interested and not trying to make any particular point.

The story thing has actually happened to me, believe it or not.

Actually it's probably happened to a ton of people. It happens all the time. Usually in verbal form, along with "remember that one time...?"

But in my case someone actually wrote a NaNoWriMo story with me as one of the central characters. It was science fiction and no one could ever mistake it for being a true story. I still did not super like being included in such a way.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#176

Post by _carbyau_ »

FromTA: "there is nothing inherently dangerous in the mere act of photographing people, children included, in the anonymity of a public space"

In times past public space anonymity was a thing. Now it isn't.

In a world of social media, surveillance, face detection, viral topics, polarisation of debate - the effects of social chilling are very real. Street photography is but a victim of this social chilling, sad as it is.

I am willing to bet, that if a person was aware of every camera as they walked down the street AND THEY COULD TURN THEM OFF/DELETE FOOTAGE they would absolutely do so.

To put it another way, if I could wear a magical badge on my shirt that prevented such imagery of me, I would wear it all the time.

Take away the ability to easily share an image of me with everyone in the world, and I would be less concerned about images of me.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#177

Post by anigbrowl »

lovelyviking wrote: post #150

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…

The same people seriously discuss if it is ok for photographer standing openly in the street to take some pictures?

I should check the dictionary for definition of insanity because it can help to describe the situation.

You could consider the possibility that debates over this are a proxy issue for discomfort with surveillance in general, as a camera with a person behind it is easier to talk about than a camera erected and operated by some anonymous corporation or government department. Meeting people where they are to consider the issue from their perspective is often more effective than performative rudeness.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#178

Post by bluefirebrand »

lovelyviking wrote: post #129
bluefirebrand wrote: post #95

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.

>taking a photo with me as the subject without my permission is almost on par with assault Why would you wish to give 'permission' to art expression of someone else? Isn't that an assault to the freedom of other person? >It feels like a huge invasion of my personal space It feels this way until there is understanding that public space means that you are part of that public and public can be photographed by anyone int…

> It feels this way until there is understanding that public space means that you are part of that public and public can be photographed by anyone interested to preserve the moment

I understand this and also disagree with it. It may be the way things are but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

> Some people feel uncomfortable and find it hard to respect basic freedom of other person for art expression

You are asking me to care more about people's artistic freedom than my own peace of mind. That is never going to happen.

> Such society is doomed to be oppressive and living in oppression could be much more uncomfortable

I don't see how asking for a good faith effort to ask permission to take or publish photos of an individual is trampling the ability of artists to express themselves.

When people photograph you, they can then do anything they want with that photo. They can delete it, or store it indefinitely, or post it online, turn it into a meme, whatever.

Forgive me if I don't think someone else should have that kind of control over something that could affect me deeply.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#179

Post by airstrike »

People equating street photography with surveillance are missing a crucial difference between the two which pertains to what happens to the media after it has been recorded.

Street photography exists for the purpose of displaying such photos to the public later on. Surveillance footage need not be seen until deemed necessary, which may or may not ever happen.

I have no opinion on this either way, but thought that was important to point out.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#180

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

dheera wrote: post #115
mdorazio wrote: post #98

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…

> I consider the human eye a camera. It also saves videos in a storage medium that doesn't permit deletion

The key distinction is that the human eye and its storage system doesn't meaningfully support duplication and distribution of the picture.

What someone saw is not going to show up in Clearview's biometric surveillance database years later, and while this one human may remember me, the inherent limitations of humans mean that the impact is vastly different from what is possible with technology.

Post reply on HN