591–600 of 767 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People were pissed once they figured out that private conversations were uploading love to the internet. Audio is different from video. This is technically illegal, as consent is explicitly required in the law for audio recording.
Which jurisdiction are you taking? Japan? Christmas Island? Cuba?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Reasonable people know you only start pointing to the contract when things escalate to a certain point as it locks everybody into a defensive posture and now everybody is going to be rigid moving forward. First, and arguably most important, thing in learned in tech & business. Once the contracts come out, it's game over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything has moved to private spaces now. Friend discord groups, private social media accounts, etc. The age of posting on Facebook under your real name with privacy settings public is long gone because of the numerous obvious risks. But just being seen in a small segment of a YouTube video with no name is a pretty minor risk.
"The age of posting on Facebook under your real name with privacy settings public is long gone" According to my 18 year old niece, FB is just for old people anyway. (Thank god I never really used it). They still use Instagram, though. Privacy concerns .. are little in general. Hard to be popular, when you avoid the mainstream plattforms. And yes, private groups are on the rise everywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most gyms it shouldn't be that hard to take useful pictures without people in them though? Do pictures of classes add anything?
> Most gyms it shouldn't be that hard to take useful pictures without people in them though? Or much simpler: when the photos of a class are taken, simply ask beforehand who disagrees with being photographed and/or photos containing him/her made public, so that for those few minutes where the photos are taken, these people can get out of the picture.
It is funny how insular and US centric many of the comments here are. In fact many countries do have legislation requiring consent in many scenarios for photographing or publishing photos. And it turns out that it is not actually very problematic. Wikimedia has some examples, but I'm sure it is not comprehensive: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_...
Not really, other European countries also have the "don't participate if you don't want to be filmed" mentality. E.g. author says: > But then I’ve seen the same at (private) conference I've been to many such conferences, and they all make it very clear that all the photos can be taken and used in advertising by anyone, both in agreements as well as entrance banners. Same as in US.
Most people are pretty reasonable and aren't aggressive with their picture taking. But there are almost certainly photos of you online whatever the local country laws may say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not a generational thing at all. There were plenty of TV shows centred around candid camera / security camera / home video footage back in the 1980s/1990s well before digital cameras or the internet was ubiquitous.
Or look at newsreels, or news reports from ... any time up to the 2010s. Obviously people's faces weren't blurred before we had the tech to do it. It's some entirely new, modern prissiness. It screws up the documenting of social history when you can't see any faces. There's been an internet fad for restored film of street scenes from 1915 or so: imagine if all the faces were blurred to protect the privacy of people w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>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 If you don't want someone to make a record of the photons that arrive at a particular place because those photons bounced off you, then don't let them go out into the world far beyond your private space.
Why are you trying to dehumanize the idea of taking a picture of someone and possibly posting it publicly by referring to it as photons? Yes we are all just atoms moving around in 3D space but it doesn't take away the fact that people should be allowed to exist outside their house without some random person recording them and possibly posting it to the internet. You don't care and that is totally fine but some people…
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…
Sadly the problem is only going to become bigger with upcoming smart glasses once masses adopt it, everyone will be recording each other without consent.
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. You've got a very large, diverse population without a strong social identity and ever-fraying trust. So you won't consistently get basic human decency any longer. That's something which is extended to the in-group with which you have real social ties and obligations. Most people don't have this any longer.
This is nonsense. People started taking photos of crowds almost as soon as the camera was invented.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not a generational thing at all. There were plenty of TV shows centred around candid camera / security camera / home video footage back in the 1980s/1990s well before digital cameras or the internet was ubiquitous.
I mean, I feel like the mindset of privacy and no one can have photos of me is a fairly recent phenomenon. Parents or grandparents definitely had books photos of everyone important to them and probably would have found it weird for someone to ask not to be photographed.