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

What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

neilzone.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 767 posts

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#491

Post by renewiltord »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #478
jedimastert wrote: post #188

Back in my day shakes first there were places where someone could do things that would normally be mildly embarrassing because they were in a supportive community. In this example, it could be playing pretend and possibly saying goofy things or falling over and tripping or getting your butt handed to you by someone half your age or something. When I was young, it would have been playing open mics as a teenager. I was…

One day somebody is going to run for President who had an extensively online youth and it's going to be wild.

Well J D Vance has all those awkward pics of him as a young fellow and it hasn't hurt him. He made VP coming from nowhere.

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#492

Post by seanw444 »

crazygringo wrote: post #356
callc wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic human decency. Just as the author says: “Publishing someone’s photo online, without their consent, without another strong justification, just because they happen to be in view of one’s camera lens, feels wrong to me.” It doesn’t fall to the legal level, but a social rules level. People who obnoxiously recording people in public, even if 100% legal, and disregard the wishes and conform of others around them dese…

I have no problem with that, but there are a lot of commenters here arguing that it should be enforced at a legal level, rather than a social rules level. For a forum that tends to trend libertarian, I'm genuinely surprised by the level of enthusiasm for using the government to police the photos people take and share of people in public spaces.

> For a forum that tends to trend libertarian

Seriously? This one? This place is Reddit with more words, in my ever-degrading experience.

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#493

Post by blackoil »

jon-wood wrote: post #276
greenavocado wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most states in the United States allow one one-party consent for audio recordings.

And most states also allow you to leave a bar thirty seconds after your friend you arranged to meet there arrives, it would still be considered rude to do so and probably you wouldn’t be welcome in the future if you kept doing it.

You are free to quit the party, but host won't be arrested for recording and sharing video.

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#494

Post by squigz »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #187
squigz wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

These are all nice concrete consequences, but I’m not sure having public images meaningfully exacerbates them. >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 h…

> 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?

Knowing your target's movements and schedule has also been an integral part of crime since forever. Also, you are again focusing on the generic - the goal being hitting any wealthy target, not this particular target.

> 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.

Maybe they know their target likes airsoft but, probably due to the stalking, has changed locations to try and get away. Looking at the few local airsoft places is probably way cheaper than hiring a PI. Can one easily hire a PI for stalking purposes, anyway? Seems like an industry that has some strong regulations but I don't really know.

Besides, you don't need to worry about things like a PI or finding random images if, for example, a friend or acquaintance in your group posts a lot. The stalker need only find that one person to keep an eye on their target - a very common tactic by abusers, by the by: being aware of your target's social circle and using it to keep tabs on them.

This also seems to focus on the physical aspect of it, as if getting attacked/kidnapped is the only possible result, but constantly getting messages like "Looks like you had fun at X" from an abuser can cause harm too.

> The solution here is to regulate what Google et al. can do with your data, not regulate what people can post online.

There are 2 separate issues. Should we regulate what people can post online? And should we expect people to respect our privacy, even if they're not legally required to? One is a legal question, the other is social/cultural.

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#495

Post by theyknowitsxmas »

gms7777 wrote: post #108
eterm wrote: post #29

I wonder if it's a generational or cultural difference present in the comments here. I am sympathetic to the author, and I also find video a bit invasive of privacy in a way that photos aren't. I therefore find the (obviously common) attitude that videos are just "something you need to accept" quite alien, but I wonder how much of that attitude is just comments coming from a younger generation that have grown up with…

I’m currently wedding planning and regularly visit a wedding planning forum. I was left flabbergasted the other day when someone posted if it would be ok to ask guests to not post pictures of the couple on social media. They’re ok with guests posting pictures of themselves or of the venue and decor, they just don’t really want pictures of the bride and groom. The response ranged from “you can ask but you can’t preven…

Good luck with that. People like the spectacle, do it in court with a casual dinner, nobody takes pictures.

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#496

Post by knorker »

ThrownOffGame wrote: post #444
GJim wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Weddings held in churches have been public with nobody turned away at the door. Most ordinary weddings *are* invitation only in Blighty. Both church weddings and secular weddings held at registry offices, town halls and the like.

You may need to define your terms more precisely. By “Blighty” are you referring to Great Britain, or a town in NSW, population 326? That seems to be a vast difference! And I am at a loss to imagine security guards checking invitations at a church door and giving heave-ho to the unworthy. What particular denominations have you polled on this? How many different types of ceremonies have you crashed?

I've touristed in several countries where the church was closed because of a wedding.

You are at a loss to imagine something that is extremely common worldwide. Though not "security guards". You don't need security guards, because when a little lady tells you to please come back in an hour and a half, people don't push her aside and scream "freedom!".

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#497

Post by wongarsu »

scarface_74 wrote: post #275
AlecSchueler wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it just happened to a woman I know recently. She took part in some naked protests like 20 years ago and photographs of them went up on various sites like Flickr from a host of different photographers and no one ever thought about it. Recently she was targeted in a revenge porn incident by someone who had used facial recognition search engines to gather dozens of nude photographs of her before distributing them…

You don’t need to find nude photos of anyone anymore if you want to do revenge porn. If you have any picture of someone there are “nudity sites” for years and years ago wasn’t there an open source one that was on GitHub? (please no one reply with the name - seriously - no need to give it any publicity on HN).

Actual nudes are even worse than AI nudes. With AI nudes

- the victim knows they are fake, which provides some emotional distance (similar to when actors choose to use prostetics or doubles for a nude scene: the viewer doesn't know but the actor still feels more comfortable)

- most of them are bad enough that the discerning eye can spot it as an AI image (many chronically online people are scarily good at that)

- they can be proven to be fake because they are just an imagined version of your body ('look, I have a tatoo/mole/scar/blemish here that isn't in the nude, it's obviously fake')

AI nudes are still pretty bad, but services that turn up nude images of you by indexing the internet with face-detection are way worse

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#498

Post by HankStallone »

jMyles wrote: post #460
callc wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic human decency. Just as the author says: “Publishing someone’s photo online, without their consent, without another strong justification, just because they happen to be in view of one’s camera lens, feels wrong to me.” It doesn’t fall to the legal level, but a social rules level. People who obnoxiously recording people in public, even if 100% legal, and disregard the wishes and conform of others around them dese…

> Basic human decency. While I think we all agree that this is crucially important, for many of us the affront to decency is not the capture of photons that have previously bounced off someone's skin, but the very idea that that person has a claim to those photons in perpetuity. I think it's indecent to suggest that someone needs to avert their gaze (or in this case, their CMOS sensor) because I happen to be in the a…

Right. If you had a swimsuit malfunction on the beach in 1995, a few people got an eyeful of your unmentionables before you could grab a towel, someone might whistle or laugh, you'd blush, and then the world would move on and you'd forget about it.

If the same thing happens in 2025, there's a decent chance your unmentionables will end up posted online for anyone to ogle in perpetuity. If you find out about it, it could really eat at you.

I don't have a solution to it, or even know if there should be one. But I think it's undeniable that it's causing a fundamental shift in what "private" and "public" mean, in people's minds if not legally. We used to be more private in public than we are now.

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#499

Post by al_borland »

eterm wrote: post #29

I wonder if it's a generational or cultural difference present in the comments here. I am sympathetic to the author, and I also find video a bit invasive of privacy in a way that photos aren't. I therefore find the (obviously common) attitude that videos are just "something you need to accept" quite alien, but I wonder how much of that attitude is just comments coming from a younger generation that have grown up with…

I find photos and videos to both be invasive and unwanted.

I’ve been a member and gyms where the owner will start taking videos and pictures of the class that ultimately end up on social media or in marketing material. I’m not ok with it and I get incredible uncomfortable when I’m in some weird position to do an exercise and a camera starts heading my way.

Any time an unwanted camera is around there is some level of anxiety that starts creeping up. Maybe this is, in part, why so many of today’s youth have anxiety disorders. How can anyone just relax if they have to worry about anything they might say or do being on camera, and then posted for the world to see.

I was at a party not too long ago where most people were 45+, and some kids that were too young to have phones. No one was on their phones, and people seemed free to dance and whatever. The second one person took out their phone to take a picture/video the vibe shifted drastically, and the owner of the house told them to put it away, so people could go back to enjoying themselves instead of being worried about an embarrassing picture of video that might surface later.

I’ve seen so many good times destroyed by cameras.

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#500

Post by sdoering »

serial_dev wrote: post #310
greenavocado wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most states in the United States allow one one-party consent for audio recordings.

I get that for whistleblowers, journalists, investigators, ... I don't think it's relevant for a birthday party with children. If it's me, I'm leaving the party. If it's my children attending, I'm strongly recommending them to leave the party (or just leave with them, depending on their age). Live-streaming a birthday party of children is obnoxious behavior that should not be tolerated.

If it’s me, in Germany, I would instantly tell this person to stop filming and to delete any recordings. And if they streamed live to expect a letter from the (German equivalent of the) DA soon, as I would - as soon as back home - I would press charges and search damages.

Because in German publishing images/recordings of an individual without consent violates basic constitutional rights. And that’s nothing to f** with.

If minors were involved you’d be in a whole different can of soup even.

So while I don’t advocate for violence - as others have hinted in this thread - a black eye could actually be the lesser negative outcome for such a person.

Post reply on HN