131–140 of 767 posts
> well, if you don’t want to be in photos published online, don’t be in public spaces That's the correct answer. End of the story. It is our consensus of what "public space" means and one can do with it (which varies depending on where you are) that forms a lot of our social norms and society. It is why hang drying clothes is acceptable/normal in many parts of the world but not in the US. It is why people are expecte…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, thanks for being honest. That's not a world I would want to live in, and I guess I'm thankful most other people don't either. The ability to photograph is important for accountability and truth in a democracy, it's important to families wanting to document and share their trips easily, and it's important for art, among many other things. Fundamentally, it feels like a kind of freedom to me. But it's interesting…
What part of those requires posting my unblurred face online?
Is he afraid that someone will be able to identify him as engaging in a hobby that some people might be judgmental about, e.g. a potential employer finding the footage and concluding “this guy spends lots of time and money playing a children’s game; he’s clearly not a serious person.” That I can understand.
But it seems like his position is stronger than this:
>Publishing someone’s photo online, without their consent, without another strong justification, just because they happen to be in view of one’s camera lens, feels wrong to me
So essentially, it’s wrong to publish any photo that happens to include people in the background? If I take an artistic photo at an art museum [0] or a restaurant [1] or a streetscape [2] and there happen to be people in the background, what possible harm could come to the people incidentally captured?
[0] https://500px.com/search?q=the%20Met&type=photos&sort=releva...
[1] https://500px.com/search?q=Busy%20restaurant&type=photos&sor...
[2] https://500px.com/search?q=Times%20Square%20&type=photos&sor...
The answer seems pretty simple. Ask your teammates not to take videos, or find a different group or a different hobby. But since they genuinely enjoy posting the videos, and there's nothing wrong with that, you're probably the one who's going to have move on. You're entitled to not want videos of you taken in public places showing up online. But you're not entitled to getting that outcome.
I expect an airsoft venue is actually a private space, not a public one. Airsoft but-actually-in-public would have people concerned about a terrorist attack, not being recorded for insta. To that extent, the hobbyists who like to create content for the internet should be asking for consent since their footage, and arguably their clout, depends on the participation of everybody else in the group. Otherwise they're jus…
At the moment, these things are not the problem of the person taking the video
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What if you're in the photo? Blur that region before posting it with an algorithm that can't be reversed. The camera app could even do this automatically. > What if you're doing something newsworthy? Every good rule has some exceptions.
Sorry. I just don't think parents at the park who take photos of their kids and share them on a public site with friends should be legally required to blur any passerby's face or go to jail. If they want to do it voluntarily then great. But making it criminal if you don't -- I don't understand that.
You’re just making an argument for inconveniencing others out of laziness — but trying to dress it up in principles.
Even if it were a gray area, the serious penalties would probably be enough to make someone want to blur it out.
> well, if you don’t want to be in photos published online, don’t be in public spaces That's the correct answer. End of the story. It is our consensus of what "public space" means and one can do with it (which varies depending on where you are) that forms a lot of our social norms and society. It is why hang drying clothes is acceptable/normal in many parts of the world but not in the US. It is why people are expecte…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What part of those requires posting my unblurred face online?
Why should I legally be required to do that, and go to jail if I don't? What makes it so important you think it should be criminal not to?
None of those things require you to invade their privacy and enjoyment of public space — you’re just negatively impacting them because you’re lazy and antisocial.
Fines are how we handle such nuisances in other cases.
This made me chuckle remembering the time a friend photographed a dog in a bicycle in Berlin and was yelled at by the owner until the photo was deleted. Photographing a pet crossed a big red privacy line. Seems absurd, but I think sensitivity to the phenomenon the author is noting will vary by country.