The sticky issue of consent in street photography • Hacker News Board

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#211

Post by nativeit » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 2:02 AM UTC

jerry1979 wrote: post #128

ivanstojic wrote: post #7

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.…

Recording audio in public is also legal in the US, I'm not sure why the analog for persons with disabilities would make any difference? Under US law, there is not presumption of privacy in public spaces, and therefore citizens have no rights to privacy while in public spaces. If someone is concerned enough about this, they are free to wear masks and communicate in code.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#212

Post by dheera » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 2:05 AM UTC

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #180

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…

> 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 hum…

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

That isn't necessarily true. Just because your eye doesn't doesn't mean mine doesn't. How do you know I wasn't born blind and retrofitted with a silicon eye that gives me both the ability to see and record/duplicate more easily than other humans?

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#213

Post by biglost » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 2:13 AM UTC

Tomte wrote: post #2

The legal situation is similar in Germany, but I wouldn't do street photography here, either. The article discusses morality and ethics versus personal preference, but that's just high-brow talk. The point is that today, once someone photographs you, you cannot possibly know where he will post or publish your photo. And yes, that's creepy. Decades ago photographers maybe showed your picture at a gallery or exhibition…

Now I must use dark glasses as turning my head could mean “I am a sexual ofender on internet for life”, but I was turning my head! Yes, i’m going to far, but maybe, just maybe, with enough bad luck…

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#214

Post by calderwoodra » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 2:24 AM UTC

btilly wrote: post #51

Data point. The most reproduced photo of the 20th century is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-J_Day_in_Times_Square . It raises multiple issues of consent. The photographer didn't know who was being photographed. The woman didn't consent to the kiss, and didn't realized she had been photographed until many years later. Under current law, it was a sexual assault. Indeed in another frame on the same camera, she was figh…

I wonder if they know they've been immortalized in National Harbor, MD.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/KnGhdR5gvGLtvq3v6

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#215

Post by ternaryoperator » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 2:32 AM UTC

GauntletWizard wrote: post #167

IgorPartola wrote: post #72

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.

Here, the trouble with HN up/down votes. I agree with the first part, but disagree with the snarky comment at the end.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#216

Post by morphicpro » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 2:39 AM UTC

MrStonedOne wrote: post #191

morphicpro wrote: post #163

The root of the issue with street photography has a whole lot less to do with the photograph and more to do with the ever present issue of male sexual abuse towards women. No one would even give a crap about these photos if not for that root cause. This is why intent is at the root of these issues. We won't likely address these issues of public domain vs privacy unless we address the root of why anyone really cares a…

> The root of the issue with street photography has a whole lot less to do with the photograph and more to do with the ever present issue of male sexual abuse towards women. This is low effort sexism. You could remove the words "male" and "towards women" and you'd avoid be being sexist while sending the same message. > Also food for thought. Would this have been as big of an issue had the photographer been a woman? W…

Lol, I know for a fact you have never once done street photography. Everything you just said proves it. I didn't just make this shit up and my singling out men was my intent. I don't really give a shit if you believe me or think I'm biased, it the facts regardless if you can deal with it. For the record I considered myself male and yeah men fucked it up for everyone. Deal with it.

Also I've been through this very thing after I took photos of people reading books from out on the street at Powell's books in Portland. The company seen the photos on Instagram and re promoted the photos. I was attacked senselessly by angry women who took issue with photos without consent claiming they were creepy and offensive. https://500px.com/photo/253650727/portland-street-photograph...

There was nothing wrong with anything I had done. I just fell victim to a valid concern by people who have been pushed to their breaking point because of other men who abuse the public domain. So I have a personal issue with these men as they have cause me and countless others problems and yeah they fucked it up for me. I know some of these men personally and I don't care for them one fucking bit. Oddly they placate the issue just the same as you, saying similar things as you. go figure.

Low effort? No more than your butt hut response. By the way don't talk to me anymore cause I've had enough of your low effort.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#217

Post by pomian » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 2:45 AM UTC

randombits0 wrote: post #110

xmprt wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My worry about it is how street photographers are able to convey meaning through context, captions, etc. I don't mind someone taking a photo of me if they get permission afterwards to post it and I'm able to ask them to take it down. However, I don't like losing control over my image.

But it’s not yours. You don’t own your “image”, just like you don’t own your DNA. It’s not reasonable to expect to require permission for someone to use your image that they captured. What if it’s for news purposes? What if it’s related to, say, and insurance fraud investigation? If you keep trying to draw the line, it gets harder and harder to draw. So what’s reasonable? If you have an expectation of privacy that’s…

Why, don't I own my dna?

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#218

Post by pomian » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 2:58 AM UTC

ThinkBeat wrote: post #88

This bit me hard. I love street photography and have been active for a number of years. I have done some good work. I never appreciated the freedom I had as a photographer in the US. A while ago I moved to Norway. I kept taking pictures. Working on two different concepts / series. I got some good shots, the cultural differences in behavior, fashion, what is considered polite etc was inspiring. I shared some shots wit…

Save them. make a trust or will to publish in 50 years after you die. then it will be history. very interesting for everyone, and no legal issues.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#219

Post by michaelt » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 3:01 AM UTC

blitzar wrote: post #172

boardwaalk wrote: post #140

Earlier 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…

The issue is whether a vast difference in quantity and price creates a difference on principle.

For example, if surveying a person in the 1970s cost $300k per year to have them constantly followed, the cops needed few other limits as the cost alone means it won’t become pervasive.

But if you can get almost the same surveillance in 2021 for $10 per annum, nothing qualitative has changed - but the primary control on overreach has gone.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#220

Post by upwardbound » Thu, Nov 25, 2021, 3:01 AM UTC

Relatedly: Since most people on this thread probably don't know this, we are often under surveillance from high-altitude aircraft. It's incredibly creepy.

Book about this: https://www.amazon.com/Eyes-Sky-Secret-Gorgon-Stare-ebook/dp...

Video example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptSeU-OnI8E&t=7s&ab_channel=...