181–190 of 767 posts
We Brits don't speak up enough in general. An e.g. German would have no qualms about going up to the person filming and making their concerns known. That's exactly why it's become normalised Also many people just flip out even about the most reasonable of requests.
If someone went up to me and "made their concerns known", I think I'd likely just walk away. It's the best way to defuse the situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Why shouldn’t they be fined for invading someone else’s privacy because they’re too lazy to touch up the photos on their phone? — why should their laziness negatively impact others use of public space? You’re just making an argument for inconveniencing others out of laziness — but trying to dress it up in principles.
You can inconvenience other people in a thousand different ways every day. And should be allowed to.
The idea that laziness or inconvenience ought to be outlawed... do you realize what you're saying? The kind of police state you're envisioning?
This is a principled thing. What's next, I get fined for walking slowly on the sidewalk? For holding up the line at the supermarket for a price check? For paying in dimes instead of dollar bills? Think about the legal principle you seem to be suggesting.
We Brits don't speak up enough in general. An e.g. German would have no qualms about going up to the person filming and making their concerns known. That's exactly why it's become normalised Also many people just flip out even about the most reasonable of requests.
If someone went up to me and "made their concerns known", I think I'd likely just walk away. It's the best way to defuse the situation.
Also not sure why you assumed there was any situation to be "defused". Weird. I guess you may be the type I referred to in my last paragraph
I wonder what would happen if someone wore a T-shirt with an ITAR restricted weapons blueprint on it or something. Hypothetically it would be legal to display that in public in the US, but illegal to post it publicly facing for foreigners to access on the internet. Even if it were a gray area, the serious penalties would probably be enough to make someone want to blur it out.
Would it? I'm certainly not a lawyer or ITAR expert, but I would think that if you walked through a public space where you couldn't positively confirm that everyone present (and everyone who might view it transitively via video recordings, live streams, etc.) was OK to access the materiel on the shirt, that would be considered an export and you'd be in big trouble.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It might be legal, but it's not polite. Too many folks forget this. Do what you want, but I'll tell you if I don't like it. Others might too. They're not infringing on your rights, but it might make you a little uncomfortable.
People like the guy I encountered are basically allergic to discomfort of any kind. Even the slightest inconvenience in their lives is seen as an incredibly personal and intolerable affront to their liberty, and they want to make damn sure we all know about it at every possible opportunity! Hence the behavior. If I were to compare it to a client relationship, it’s the kind of person who throws the contract in a partn…
First, and arguably most important, thing in learned in tech & business. Once the contracts come out, it's game over.
Genuinely curious: what concrete negative consequences are there from appearing in the background of other people’s photos/videos, in a full face mask no less? 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 clear…
You're looking for a generic reason, I think, and there isn't and doesn't need to be one other than "people can desire their privacy for various reasons" Maybe publicizing where someone is every week lets criminals plan their crimes. Maybe it gives away someone's location to an abusive ex or family member or stalker. Maybe people just don't want Google and the like to have even more data about our whereabouts and act…
>robbers
Why would a criminal take time to comb through random, anonymous, uncategorized images of people to ambiguously identify someone who might not be home (and might not even have a house worth breaking into), when it’s much easier to just stake out wealthy neighborhoods and definitively see who’s not home and who has unsecured valuables, as has been done for centuries?
>stalkers
So said stalker would have to run facial recognition software on every image on the internet to find the handful that might incidentally contain their victim? Someone that determined would just hire or use the methods of a PI, which have long been effective at finding people who don’t want to be found.
>Google et al.
The solution here is to regulate what Google et al. can do with your data, not regulate what people can post online.
When I was young, it would have been playing open mics as a teenager. I wasn't amazing but it's really important to play publicly in order to grow as a musician, and that means kinda sucking in public. I would not have become a musician if I didn't have that supportive community.
In this day and age, if I were to do that, someone would probably live stream it or film it on their phone and put it on YouTube, then It would get found by the kind of awful kids that like to make other people feel awful for no reason, then they would have found my like Facebook or social media or something, I'd catch shit at school, and I never would have touched an instrument again.
So yeah, save your highlight reels for someone else, thanks.
I guess the concern then shifts to dragnet automated surveillance of it.
> I occasionally see people saying “well, if you don’t want to be in photos published online, don’t be in public spaces”. > This is nonsense, for a number of reasons. Clearly, one should be able to exist in society, including going outside one’s own home, without needing to accept this kind of thing. In the US the legal doctrine is no privacy at all in public spaces (a lot more expansive than that actually), that's p…