Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Roc Camera

roc.camera

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 491 posts

Re: Roc Camera

#291

Post by aspenmayer »

rkomorn wrote: post #284
aspenmayer wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's a mistake to cling to a definition of "public" that doesn't account for how much things have changed. I think it’s a mistake for others in different jurisdictions to tell those subject to those norms how they ought to live. The times may have changed, and we didn’t start the fire. We could put it out if we wanted, or if the lick of the flames brought us undue harm. Perhaps most folks just don’t want to…

Photography is my favorite art form to consume, so I'm not in favor of any kind of ban of it. I also agree that freedom to photograph is a free speech issue. I just happen to think the ability to live your life without having it being recorded everywhere is also a freedom issue. I think it's a challenge for us to solve and I don't pretend to have a solution. I just don't agree with a "change nothing" stance on ground…

I don’t mean to direct anything at anyone, other than my viewfinder. I believe in home rule, and not dictates from bureaucrats. As a sort of journalist, I’m going to keep taking pictures, and to keep writing journals. Anything less or different would be to be someone other than myself the best and only way I know how, and that isn’t being true to myself or to others.

If you felt that I directed my comments at you, I apologize; I almost certainly wasn’t. If anything, I am directing them at myself, as an affirmation of what I believe and why. Freedom of expression is one of the few issues that I will take a principled stance on, and if you feel that I was directing my comment at you, I don’t mean to, though you are free to express whatever you feel led to if you feel that I have given you short shrift or unalloyed fire, friendly or otherwise.

Re: Roc Camera

#292

Post by exasperaited »

volemo wrote: post #272
lynx97 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the combination of "pictures of strangers" and "our right to take pictures" rather concerning. I have a different perspective, as I am blind. But I was always uncomfortable with having a picture taken of me by basically a stranger. And that feeling didn't just come with social media. It always was there. I disagree that you have a "right" to take pictures of strangers. IMO, you shouldn't have that right. It is…

While I agree with you that publishing a picture of a person without their consent ought to be illegal, I as an individual with very unreliable memory and one who’s always doubting my perception of reality, I heavily rely on modern technology and strongly believe that personal recording of any kind is my right, it being simple augmentation of my senses that allows me to live happier and more fulfilled life.

It should not be illegal. It should be ethical.

The GDPR provides a pretty good framework for media organisations and journalists to shoot people without consent.

Re: Roc Camera

#294

Post by aspenmayer »

nandomrumber wrote: post #287
aspenmayer wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And therefore, I oppose the "right" for anyone to do that, simply because I can never know what they will end up doing with that photo. Jurisprudence in my country can’t preempt legal activities because they might lead to wrongdoing in the future. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don’t know what you think folks are likely to do, but there are likely already laws against doing most things you would…

Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean you aren’t being a rude cunt. Which are here too. People can complain about whatever they want. It’s entirely legal to have an opinion, since you seem so preoccupied with laws.

> Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean you aren’t being a rude cunt.

I can’t top that as a “how do you do,” and yet, it’s both of our birthright to be “a rude cunt” or worse, within the bounds of the law.

Re: Roc Camera

#296

Post by globular-toast »

Has anyone else found themselves becoming hyper-attuned to "AI" trickery in photographs?

Just the other day I stumbled across this picture on Wikipedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:An_AT%26T_wireless_r... Can anyone explain what's going on with the front tyre of the white car? To me it looks like the actual picture was ingested by a model then spat back out again with a weird artifact.

The worrying thing is when it becomes too hard to spot the artifacts we won't know how much of our history has been altered subtly, either unintentionally or not, by "AI".

Re: Roc Camera

#297

Post by nandomrumber »

aspenmayer wrote: post #294
nandomrumber wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean you aren’t being a rude cunt. Which are here too. People can complain about whatever they want. It’s entirely legal to have an opinion, since you seem so preoccupied with laws.

> Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean you aren’t being a rude cunt. I can’t top that as a “how do you do,” and yet, it’s both of our birthright to be “a rude cunt” or worse, within the bounds of the law.

Excellent response, you made me laugh.

I was getting enduly riled up over anonymous internet comments and was going to say something much more obnoxious, but not everyone gets Australian humour so I figured I’d tone it down.

If I saw you take an unasked photo of our blind friend here, I’d let them know so they’d have an opportunity to approach you and ask you to deleted it, if they happen to feel motivated to do so, and offer to take care of it myself ;)

Re: Roc Camera

#298

Post by aspenmayer »

rkomorn wrote: post #286
bborud wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there is also the fact that in a lot of cities, you will be filmed, often by multiple cameras, most of the time, without you being aware of it. By law enforcement, security cameras (private and otherwise), cars etc. on top of that you carry around a phone that streams intimate information about your location, behavior, preferences to a bunch of data aggregators. And then there are the signal surveillance networ…

I agree we're already in a bad place but I don't find the "ship has sailed" take particularly engaging. Addressing nothing because everything can't be addressed isn't a great strategy for change.

> Addressing nothing because everything can't be addressed isn't a great strategy for change.

Presupposing that some strategies for change are less suitable than others is no argument against the status quo, either. Sometimes the way things are is just the way folks in a given time and place do things, and is simply contingent as much as it’s worthwhile.

When the going gets tough, the tough get going. If you don’t like the way things are done here, you either care to make a change, including hearts and minds, or you don’t. If you aren’t from here, that might be an uphill battle, perhaps even both ways: coming and going.

It’s a kind of double standard to judge folks for their customs without wanting to do the work to disabuse them of their notions, lest they warn you not to let the door hit you on your way out, especially after it was opened unto you in the first place. Wanting to have it both ways is a sort of special pleading.

Re: Roc Camera

#299

Post by n1c »

If you like the idea of a small "dumbish" camera but aren't fussed about all the ZK proof stuff these are quite fun: https://www.campsnapphoto.com/collections/camp-snap-screen-f... I have a few and letting my small kid have a blast while not getting "screen time" is great.

Side effect is I get a small little window into what he "sees" and his lived experience. Going through some of the pics recently was quite beautiful.

Re: Roc Camera

#300

Post by aspenmayer »

nandomrumber wrote: post #297
aspenmayer wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean you aren’t being a rude cunt. I can’t top that as a “how do you do,” and yet, it’s both of our birthright to be “a rude cunt” or worse, within the bounds of the law.

Excellent response, you made me laugh. I was getting enduly riled up over anonymous internet comments and was going to say something much more obnoxious, but not everyone gets Australian humour so I figured I’d tone it down. If I saw you take an unasked photo of our blind friend here, I’d let them know so they’d have an opportunity to approach you and ask you to deleted it, if they happen to feel motivated to do so,…

I’ve spent some time down under myself, and I would hope if you were to ever find me lacking, to the degree that you needed to take care of me, that you have the foresight to have that moment on camera, because such a photograph ought to go straight to the pool room.[0]

[0] (For those who haven't seen The Castle (1997), you really owe it to the Australians in your life to make an appointment with yourself to do so at your earliest convenience. Here's the scene from the film in question which originated one of my favorite bits of Aussie slang:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCtMTbKX6_I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Castle_(1997_Australian_fi... )

Post reply on HN