741–750 of 767 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most parents will punch you in the face if you try to record audio of thier children without two party consent.
Do that in a public place and you will catch an assault and/or battery charge
Any jury with parents on it will acquit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unrelated to this post but what does it mean when a person isn't invited to the whole day?
In weddings in the U.K. (or at least in England) anyone can attend a wedding - legally they have to be open. It’s therefore not uncommon if it’s local for more distant friends of family, neighbours, etc. to pop along to the ceremony at invitation of the couple or their parents as a result, but not to be invited to the party part. Sometimes older guests will just come to ceremony too.
That's an insane legal requirement. I'll do the legal wedding in the most unceremonious, quickest manner possible, and then have my real ceremony in privacy and not tell anyone about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I get it, but the alternative is what? Stop taking video in public, or at least of the public. You just assume you should be able to do that and the whole world should adjust to your preference. Maybe it should be the other way around.
Do you also support a blanket ban of CCTV in public spaces? I am pretty sure that the bank had a camera in the ATM recording a public pavement 24/7 and nobody bats an eye.
I'm not sure I support anything. I'm just pointing out that there is a path available if you don't just assume that you should be allowed to take video.
But it wouldn't bother me at all to have, say, a rule that you couldn't have a surveillance camera covering any space you didn't own, and furthermore that if you had a camera covering a space that you did own that was open to the public, and recordings would be deleted after say 24 hours unless there was special justification to keep a specific one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In weddings in the U.K. (or at least in England) anyone can attend a wedding - legally they have to be open. It’s therefore not uncommon if it’s local for more distant friends of family, neighbours, etc. to pop along to the ceremony at invitation of the couple or their parents as a result, but not to be invited to the party part. Sometimes older guests will just come to ceremony too.
What the fu- That's an insane legal requirement. I'll do the legal wedding in the most unceremonious, quickest manner possible, and then have my real ceremony in privacy and not tell anyone about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what practical difference does it have that it's "available via digital media to the world."? Are you just opposed to people not in your physical location seeing you? Why?
There's a world of difference. I know the people in my local community and they know me. We speak the same dialects and use the same slang. Nobody is going to take some off-color idiom the wrong way or judge me for poor grammar or enunciation. I know who the whackjobs are and don't need to interact with them or watch my speech to avoid triggering them and dealing with ensuing harassment, threats, violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, and? There's a difference between one person seeing me in public and two, but no meaningful difference
Depends who the second person is. And of course we are in an age where companies pride themselves into hovering up as much "public" data as they can find, analyze it and sell it to whoever wants it, so "find every photo or video this face is in" could lead to quite a detailed profile depending on how often this happens. Scale matters. (Similarly to how "we have license plates on cars to identify them if needed" is a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what practical difference does it have that it's "available via digital media to the world."? Are you just opposed to people not in your physical location seeing you? Why?
There are a number of reasons, including: - I see who sees me, a digital copy breaks this symmetry - Recordings may be stored indefinitely, searched through, used for things I can't even imagine today - In a local environment a specific behavior might be normal or accepted while in some other cultures it is not. This conflict is bound to happen etc.
So why worry about it? It's like worrying a camera will "capture your soul" or whatever the story about those tribesmen is.
> a local environment a specific behavior might be normal or accepted while in some other cultures it is not
Do you actually have an example of this or is this yet another hypothetical?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what practical difference does it have that it's "available via digital media to the world."? Are you just opposed to people not in your physical location seeing you? Why?
I'm not a fan of my out-of-the-home activities all being stored in an online database accessible to billions of people and automatically scanned by several different governments (including a list of foreign countries extensive enough to include at least one you wish it didn't, regardless of who you are) to build a profile of every person, from hobbies to schedule to gait recognition to psychographic profile. But of c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but why even care about this? Is it an invasion of your privacy if strangers see you walking down the street? If no, how is strangers seeing you walking down the street in the background of some youtube video a privacy violation??
It's the same reason why people are okay being carded, but not okay with submitting their ID digitally to be recorded and retained forever. Meeting people in public has an obvious, logical bound. Being recorded does not. When you pass by someone in public, you're one of a thousand - passers-by see you once and then never again, they don't permanently remember you or what you did, no one but the people who know you ca…
> someone puts up a service that let people upload a picture of your face and have it return a dossier with every bit of video you've ever appeared in
Okay and why exactly would anybody be interested in that? Sounds like a pointless hypothetical
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's almost like eroding privacy is a shared goal of corporations and government, and that both are fine with endlessly tormenting and selling out their customers/those they represent. It's as if they are the common person's adversaries rather and aren't helping or providing a service as they claim.
I wonder how much of the government sponsored erosion of privacy is driven by the over empowered private sector still.