This isn’t sticky legally or morally. By law and by cultural acceptance we in the west have decided it’s cool in public places and have no expectation of privacy.
The sticky issue of consent in street photography
181–190 of 292 posts
Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography
#182Privacy, in a legal sense, only exists within a very narrow domain. Whenever you are in public, whether you are there to be seen or not, you are seen and therefore have no right to privacy in that domain.
Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Your memories carry little to no weight if they conflict with some more tangible record in a dispute. When that changes, there will no doubt be other ramifications, like neural disrupters or jamming technologies.
Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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.
Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography
#185While 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 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 people we never meet. We need to be angry to satisfy all of the issues and perceived lack of power in our own lives.
Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography
#186While 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 other commenter is right to call your comment performative rudeness. You're acting like it's insane that the boiled frog is complaining about the water temperature. Meanwhile facebook just released sunglasses that can surreptitiously record everyone everywhere.
Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography
#187I usually don't like having my picture taken by anyone, machine or human.
But it's probably less threatening to most people if it's just someone taking a picture of the area from a distance – or an amateur/tourist with a smartphone rather than a professional with an expensive camera. Women photographers might also be perceived as more benign.
Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography
#188As a rather privacy-conscious person, I find this argument rather troubling: > asking for [consent] afterwards almost guarantees you will be turned down. In other words: I can't ask for people's consent because they might not give consent. > Even I, as a photographer, would feel suspicious if a stranger came up to me saying they just took my photo and would like some kind of retroactive permission. The fact that most…
> In other words: I can't ask for people's consent because they might not give consent.
I think you missed the point.
If somebody came up to me and asked permission to do something they already did, i'd say no out of "what the fuck" factor even if i would have said yes if they asked before.
Implying they were suggesting otherwise is stretching the truth.
Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography
#189Earlier 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…
I feel very strongly about this because facebook is trying to get everyone to wear sunglasses that can surreptitiously put my picture online and TFA is trying to tell everyone that it's fine. I'm not in any art galleries TFA is talking about, sure, and you're telling me that means I can't speak up? Or that commenting means I'm a "fucking animal?"
Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography
#190While 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 live in a country where surveillance cameras can only be used, in most cases, to investigate crimes. (although the government is trying hard to change this, lately).
Photography of public space is allowed, but if the subject is a specific person, you must obtain permission.
This also leaves an awkward gray area for things like dashcams, which can be considered unregistered surveillance cameras and as such are not allowed.