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

451–460 of 491 posts

Re: Roc Camera

#451

Post by rstuart4133 »

fooqux wrote: post #420
I_dream_of_Geni wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this comes to mind? : "Astronomer CEO Andy Byron and chief people officer Kristin Cabot, who were caught on a Coldplay concert jumbotron hugging each other and then quickly recoiling when they realized they were on camera." They obviously didn't ask for that, and it was focused on them without their permission, and yet, here we are....

> They obviously didn't ask for that, and it was focused on them without their permission, and yet, here we are.... The rule is: if you're in public you have no expectation of privacy. I think a debate on that rule would be interesting. My thought is that if I can't take a picture unless there's absolutely nobody else in the FOV, then that basically prohibits the vast majority of photographs.

I also am a fan of the "expectation of privacy" rule.

That's primarily because it makes it absolutely clear the public always has the right to record officials doing their job. So if you see a policeman murdering George Floyd in the street, or fellow shopper pushing an old woman out of the way, or a parent screaming abuse at an umpire, or even just someone littering in a national park there is no doubt you are allowed to record it.

Yes, this means towards more surveillance, but it's a counter balance to the surveillance state. The state and large corporations put cameras everywhere. It seems odd to me that people get really upset by taking photos of them when there are likely numerous CCTV cameras already doing that 24 hours a day, in not so public places like offices. The "anyone can take photos in a public place" rule means Joe Citizen gets the same rights as the corporations and governments take for themselves.

I'm in the minority though. The best illustration I've seen of the was a man take a photo of the cheer leaders at a big football game. He leaned over the fence and put his camera on the ground, taking the photo as the girl kicked her leg into the air. His actions where caught on the TV camera that was broadcasting that same girls crouch around the nation. The police prosecuted him because of the huge outcry. I'm can't recall what the outcome in court was, but I couldn't see how he could be breaking the photography rules given my country has the "expectation of privacy" rule.

Re: Roc Camera

#452

Post by cardanome »

thegrimmest wrote: post #446
cardanome wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Again, publishing a photo is IMO another matter. With analog photography this might be a useful distinction but with digital it is easy to leak that photo even without explicit intention to do so. Even if the intention was to never share my photo, it is likely to be automatically uploaded to Google Cloud or similar services. It can be hacked, it will end up as training data for some LLM and so on. It is more practi…

I’m not sure I agree that consent should be a requirement for photographing people in public. You have a right to observe people in public. You have a right to take notes about these people and publish them. You have a right to hire a person to sit in a public place and record their observations, and to publish these to your heart’s content. Technologically augmenting these rights does not change them. A pen and pape…

> You have a right to observe people in public. You have a right to take notes about these people and publish them.

Not completely. If you keep staring at me, following me around and taking notes I am going to call the police even if you keep to public spaces.

While it is not illegal to stare at people I would strongly advice you to not do so. You will find that some people will react quite badly to it.

> You have a right to hire a person to sit in a public place and record their observations, and to publish these to your heart’s content.

No, you can't. They can write about the people they saw in general terms but once you publish information that directly identifies me and contains personal information about me, I am gonna sue you. Might vary depending on country though.

People are making such high level philosophical argument about why they should be allowed to photograph strangers but no one answers why. It is hard for me to come up with any non malicious reason. Sure, maybe you just like photography but then again photograph people that consent to it.

Not to mention even if you legally can, I doubt that running around photographing strangers will gain you any positive reputation. In practice you are well advised to ask for consent anyway.

Re: Roc Camera

#453

Post by thegrimmest »

cardanome wrote: post #452
thegrimmest wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure I agree that consent should be a requirement for photographing people in public. You have a right to observe people in public. You have a right to take notes about these people and publish them. You have a right to hire a person to sit in a public place and record their observations, and to publish these to your heart’s content. Technologically augmenting these rights does not change them. A pen and pape…

> You have a right to observe people in public. You have a right to take notes about these people and publish them. Not completely. If you keep staring at me, following me around and taking notes I am going to call the police even if you keep to public spaces. While it is not illegal to stare at people I would strongly advice you to not do so. You will find that some people will react quite badly to it. > You have a…

> You will find that some people will react quite badly to it

It’s a good thing we have laws, courts, and prisons for people who can’t control themselves.

> once you publish information that directly identifies me and contains personal information about me, I am gonna sue you

For what? What right of yours have I violated by retransmitting publicly available information about you? Presumably this right of yours would also be infringed if I gossiped about you? I agree it’s not a polite thing to do, but rights only count when they protect contentious actions.

> It is hard for me to come up with any non malicious reason

Free people don’t need to justify their actions. Your country may infringe on your rights, but that doesn’t invalidate the assertion they exist. Freedom of speech and the consequential freedom of the press are fundamental to a free society. Having to justify yourself when you’re not harming anyone is tyrannical.

Re: Roc Camera

#454

Post by dghlsakjg »

anonymous908213 wrote: post #422
dghlsakjg wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some merchants in those countries have stopped. There isn’t a general stoppage of everything. I just checked and you can still send goods between Japan and the US. There are still merchants selling the exact mentioned camera on eBay that will ship to the US. Here is the exact camera mentioned, offered by a Japanese seller, that will ship to the United States: https://www.ebay.com/itm/317445808304 Can you source your…

I see, that was my mistake then. I was unaware that services like FedEx were still accepting packages. My personal experience was that I have been unable to ship to the US for months because the carrier I use stopped accepting packages, and was under the impression they all had given the number of countries for which this was true and the news coverage I had seen. I wonder why so many countries' postal services have…

There were some temporary stops, but mostly they resolved pretty quickly. I think an issue is that the US requested that tariffs be paid upfront at the sending end and a some couriers aren’t set up for that. Or that they needed time to set it up.

Many of the postal and courier systems that suspended service have since set up the systems they need, and are happily moving packages into the US, but it tends not to make the news.

Re: Roc Camera

#455

Post by mcdeltat »

peteforde wrote: post #62

I used to be really (really really) into photography. I respect anyone working hard on a physical product, but this misses the mark on every front I can think of. The real issue that photographers grapple with, emotionally and financially, is that pictures have become so thoroughly commodified that nobody assigns them cultural value anymore. They are the thumbnail you see before the short video clip starts playing. N…

Agreed, the issue is more that the average person doesn't care about photos. Even now you can tell what is real vs fake in photography and people don't care, they eat it all up. The good, the bad, the fake, doesn't matter because no one gives a fuck. If you actually appreciate the art of photography then you already do and will continue to regardless of AI or whatever.

Re: Roc Camera

#456

Post by torginus »

nameless912 wrote: post #366
torginus wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This gave me an idea - what if we made a stable diffusion based AI that would replace unimportant faces (and possibly other identifying details) with different ones - I have seen that AI can do this and make the change unnoticeable. That way people would be safe from having their personal likeness and whereabouts accidentally plastered over the internet (except when they want their photo to be taken), and the end res…

Ah yes, because more AI will solve this problem. No, what we need is for people to feel safe in public again, for them to not feel like they're constantly one questionable picture away from their lives being ruined. Kill social media, kill gigantic public face tracking dragnets, kill privacy-invading capitalism.

And here I was thinking AI would solve a problem in a way people would appreciate just this once

Re: Roc Camera

#457

Post by cardanome »

thegrimmest wrote: post #453
cardanome wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have a right to observe people in public. You have a right to take notes about these people and publish them. Not completely. If you keep staring at me, following me around and taking notes I am going to call the police even if you keep to public spaces. While it is not illegal to stare at people I would strongly advice you to not do so. You will find that some people will react quite badly to it. > You have a…

> You will find that some people will react quite badly to it It’s a good thing we have laws, courts, and prisons for people who can’t control themselves. > once you publish information that directly identifies me and contains personal information about me, I am gonna sue you For what? What right of yours have I violated by retransmitting publicly available information about you? Presumably this right of yours would…

> For what? What right of yours have I violated by retransmitting publicly available information about you? Presumably this right of yours would also be infringed if I gossiped about you? I agree it’s not a polite thing to do, but rights only count when they protect contentious actions.

Information that you gained from observing me is not necessarily publicly available information. You can't camp in front of an abortion clinic and write down everyone who went in and publish that on the internet, at least not in Germany.

Generally, if there is not a legitimate public interest, you can not publish information that would direct identify me, like my name, in a newspaper.

> Free people don’t need to justify their actions.

Well if you answered that questions, we could have an actual discussion.

Currently everyone that responded to me here said a variation of "everyone should have the right to photograph strangers without their consent because everyone should have the right to photograph strangers without their consent" with a bit of fancy works.

Like yeah this might be true and self evident because of some axioms that you have but that I don't necessary share and that you don't make explicit so this looks completely pointless to me.

I genuinely don't even understand the passion for photographing strangers without their consent and why it needs to be defended with such a lofty rhetoric.

My best attempt to steelman this is that you think restricting your god given right to photograph strangers without their consent is some slippery slop towards having more rights taken away which is... a very weak point.

> Your country may infringe on your rights, but that doesn’t invalidate the assertion they exist.

This makes no sense to me. There is not right to photograph strangers without their consent in the declaration of human right and never has such right existed in my country so how can that be my right?

What the hell has photographing strangers without their consent to do with free speech?

Re: Roc Camera

#458

Post by glaucon »

bborud wrote: post #225
jeswin wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you don't buy it for the specs, you buy it for the experience. It topped sales charts when it was launched. If I had more time to spend on photography, or if I was younger, or if it was a little cheaper I'd have bought it myself. I suspect more will follow the X-Half, because it gets orientation right. Most images are viewed today in portrait mode, and half-frame is the right format for that.

The people who buy these cameras would probably be better served by upgrading their phones. Phones are good enough cameras for this use and they are infinitely better at processing. As a long time hobbyist photographer I can understand buying cameras because they have a certain appeal. But I have to say that I honestly do not understand why someone would spend lots of money and then not want to take advantage of the…

> The people who buy these cameras would probably be better served by upgrading their phones.

I'm sorry if this too far off topic but I routinely go to use my phone's camera and the ambient light level is so high I can barely see what I'm intending to photograph, and I certainly can't see the on-screen controls.

I've seen hoods intended to over your head and into which the phone fits and this would, I assume, resolve the issue but by comparison a point and click with a 'proper' viewfinder (perhaps with the rubber surround some used to have) would be a very good solution by comparison.

Re: Roc Camera

#460

Post by Brendinooo »

LaGrange wrote: post #351
divan wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been (really, really) into photography since I was six, and I’m still (really, really) at it three decades later. I never felt much appeal toward photography as an art form – it’s always been a way to capture moments and share them with people I care about. These days I play with both AI photography and “normal” photography. My main camera is the A9 III with a global shutter – a machine gun that fires 120fps RAW…

Wow that’s bleak. “Look at that fake photo of you but better.”

Portraiture has always, always, always idealized its subjects, long before photography was a thing.
Post reply on HN