201–210 of 292 posts
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…
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.
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 erect…
From the article, > The people who get the most worked up over the ethics of certain images are NOT themselves the subjects of the photo. This is outrage culture. People want to be angry. Here's something more for them to dogpile onto. Delivered by the Internet and amplified by engagement and sentiment detection algorithms. We're fucking animals screaming about events we never witness, experiences we never feel, and…
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…
There's a difference between surveillance cameras (whose footage is not distributed publicly unless it is footage of a crime taking place) and photographers who sell this work for profit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's very surprising that exposing oneself to the public ... warrants a loss of freedom to privacy. Again, I understand your personal desire for privacy (and even share it), but this argument doesn't make sense. "Public" is literally an antonym of "Private" - the reason one loses privacy in public is baked into the very definition of the words we're using to describe the situation.
It makes total sense. To live any kind of livable life you need to go into the public space now and then. That shouldn't mean you have to give up any rights or freedoms.
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 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?
Part of the issue is that modern cameras are very high definition. For example, they can capture your skin in detail which is unnerving. They can also capture what you are reading which means that they dance very closely to the idea of recording audio in public without consent. This could be especially bad if the photographer captures images of communications used by people with disabilities such as braille or signs.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I understand correctly, the reason why public photography is considered protected speech is because we want citizens to be able to capture public events of interest. That is, protests, riots, cops using excessive force, or more happy events like celebrations, etc. When it comes to someone taking photos in those situations I have no problem with it. However I really dislike the commercial street photographers as a…
"Public events of interest" is but one of many arguments, and your concern - Of being photographed on the street- Is in opposition to one of the other strongest arguments, that photography, even of random passers-by, is a form of art. That capturing life around you and the sights of your life are worth remembering. Quite frankly, I suggest you take your argument to some frozen icy wastes.
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…
[deleted]
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…
https://www.earthcam.com/cams/newyork/timessquare/?cam=tsstr...