Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 27, 2009, 1:30 PM   #141
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

And finally we have the point.

Some people hold that we should have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in public places. Voila! Was that so hard to admit?

So knowing that, it is up to the photographer to choose what to do about that. I personally think it's much better that the photograph be published on the internet where most likely no-one who knows me will see it than locally where many who see it will know me. On the internet anyone could see it, but in fact hardly anyone will. Certainly not on a site like this one. Facebook is a whole other story of course. But like everyone else I agree it's nice to be nice and if someone asked me not to I would respect their wishes.

I believe in Germany the law is such that people do have a right to privacy even in public places and you cannot publish pictures of them unless you can make a case that it is in the public interest and you must get releases from them if not.

Clearly passing such a law would not necessarily cause the sky to fall, and it may indeed come to pass. I hope it doesn't, but it could and may well.

We have had a breakthrough. Is it reasonable to expect some privacy when acting anonymously in a public place?

If anyone is interested in looking up the German law we could make a start as to how it might be framed.

But we have some examples already from the thread. In order to protect society, a person engaged in public business might give up this right by default - e.g. a politician at a political rally, a council worker about their business, a doctor at a press conference. There are many places where photography is currently prohibited and the fabric of society does not collapse: shopping malls for instance, hospitals, public swimming baths, police stations and military bases.

So the proposed law is simply that this be extended onto the street. And Bynx may have the right of it, the offense could be in the publishing, not the taking. Could that actually make street photography easier? Make people less likely to get wound up if they knew it was for private use only, and that consent would be required if publications were to done?
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2009, 2:13 PM   #142
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

Since we seem to be putting words in each others' mouths, I will assume it is for clarity in helping the othe parties understand our positions. Those who are advocating unrestricted publishing of other peoples' images, appear to say " I want to, so I will. I don't care how you feel about it. There is no law against it. You are no more than a tree or rock or building, and have no say."
Hypothetical situation 1: I have a morbid fear of crocodiles (not irrational-it only comes in to play when I'm in the presence of crocodiles). While I'm asleep in a hammock on my lawn, you carry me off to a croc infested river bank (I am a sound sleeper) A: I wake up to find myself being eaten by a crocodile. Have I been harmed? You betcha! B: I wake up, find myself in this situation, and in panic, run away, narrowly escaping bbeing eaten. Have I been harmed? Yup. C: I don't wake up, you carry me back home and I am not aware anything happened. Have I been harmed? Hmm?
Hypothetical situation 2: I have a fear (again, with reason) of having my image appear in "Austria". You take a photo of me, in my hammock and publish it on your Pbase site. A: An "Austrian" government agency scans all public photo albums using facial recognition software and finds my picture, finds me, and I leave the rest to your imagination. Have I been harmed? B: I find out about the photo first, change my name, and move to another part of the country. Have I been harmed? C: I don't know it happened, and the "Austrians" miss it as well. Have I been harmed?
It has been stated that the low probablility of harm is a valid reason to continue to be allowed to publish on the web without restriction. Just the possibility of harm from second had smoke, has been deemed reason to ban smoking from almost all indoor public gathering places, and has, in some cases, been banned even outdoors. Small probability or not, the denial of people's ability to decide whether or not to breathe it, has been considered justification. Similarly, the denial of a person's ability to choose whether or not to have his image appear in a place where harm COULD occur as a result, MAY end up being consideed justification to require consent. (And if it comes to that, it would likely mean, in writing, and the burden would be on the publisher - you to maintain the documentation)
There is a considerable difference between personal web pages and works published by newspapers, magazines, and other media outlets. The difference being that publication by commercial entities is subject to editorial and legal review, as well as the requirements of advertisers and subscribers. Personal web pages are not subject to anything but the whims of the person, and rules of the owner of the site. Guess what could change?
So I am not misunderstood, I will state that I am not advocating changes to laws, but rather cautioning that the laws could and very likely will, change. There appears to be quite a backlash growing regarding just this issue. It only takes one highly emotional issue. Remember the Lindbergh baby? (probably not, but you've likely heard of the incident) JFK and RFK assasinations? September 11, 2001? The changes almost always go too far in the way of restrictions, and it is a long hard road to win back freedom, if ever.
brian
VTphotog is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2009, 2:40 PM   #143
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
As much as I dont want to talk about words since this isnt what the thread is about at all, I can see a parallel situation. "Would you mind someone secretly taping a conversation you were having in the street, not meant for public hearing, and posted on the internet for the world to hear?"
Absolutely! And?

Your example is the equivalent of me shooting pictures of you in the bathroom, changing your swimsuit, in your office - Any of which is not only immoral, but like your example of a tape recorder - Illegal and a violation of existing Criminal Law.

Now Bynx, you have used the argument about "privacy" on this thread upteen thousand times. A little late to start defining privacy Only in terms of photography.

Second, you have the annoying habit of expecting people to answer specific question, BUT ignoring specific questions directed at you.

Do you or don't you have a problem with your personal views being available to a search engine? And I might add, that SOME of the links are to statements which you now reject, as, in your own words, "stupid."

So, someone might very well read these self described stupid statements and get the wrong opinion of you - Whereas, what conclusion can they draw from your image?

Moreover, I can misquote you, simply by posting statements out of context, and convince my readers, that you are a fanatical fool - Something none of my photographs can do. I need no permission from you to do so - And if I was quoting you in an accurate manner, what then? and in either case, not only is no permission required, but few would say that posting an accurate quotation is in any way immoral.

What then about your concerns of privacy and permission?

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2009, 2:54 PM   #144
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Once Ive put my words on the internet you or anyone can do whatever with them as you want. Knock yourself out. But if my words were put on the internet by you or anyone else that is another matter entirely. So what is your point?
Making stupid analogies like taping someone in the street is like doing it in the bathroom. Why mention bathroom? Thats it get off topic again. I said it simple enough -- IN THE STREET. There are parabolic dishes and enough gyzmos and gadgets that secretly taping private conversations is easy enough. At this point Im gonna bet Tcav wants to pop in and say the sound waves dont belong to me and he is free to tape a few. Well sorry but there are laws about that no matter how many times Bush paid no attention to them at all. So I will repeat myself s-l-o-w-l-y so you can grasp what Im saying. Is it ok for someone to tape record your private conversation while in the street and then post it on the net? I think that is a YES or NO answer with a little explanation if you care to give one.
Bynx is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2009, 2:55 PM   #145
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
I guess it becomes a matter of where you would consider that place to be. For me walking to the store, minding my own business, is such a place. ...
When I'm in a public restroom, I think I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I think it's unreasonable to expect that you would have any expectation of privacy on a public street, regardless of the circumstances. If you don't want your image to be captured as you walk down your steet, you are free to wear a black hoodie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
As much as I dont want to talk about words since this isnt what the thread is about at all, I can see a parallel situation. "Would you mind someone secretly taping a conversation you were having in the street, not meant for public hearing, and posted on the internet for the world to hear?"
The same goes for my words. If I have a reasonable expectation of privacy, then I would object. If I'm standing on a street corner, I would temper my words under any circumstances, so that nothing that I said would be embarrassing for me or my companions.

How we look, speak and behave in public is different from how we look, speak and behave in private. If you can't flip the switch in your brain that goes from "private" to "public", don't get angry with someone else if how you look and what you say and do is recorded.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2009, 2:58 PM   #146
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
Since we seem to be putting words in each others' mouths, I will assume it is for clarity in helping the othe parties understand our positions. Those who are advocating unrestricted publishing of other peoples' images, appear to say " I want to, so I will. I don't care how you feel about it. There is no law against it. You are no more than a tree or rock or building, and have no say."
Hypothetical situation 1: I have a morbid fear of crocodiles (not irrational-it only comes in to play when I'm in the presence of crocodiles). While I'm asleep in a hammock on my lawn, you carry me off to a croc infested river bank (I am a sound sleeper) A: I wake up to find myself being eaten by a crocodile. Have I been harmed? You betcha! B: I wake up, find myself in this situation, and in panic, run away, narrowly escaping bbeing eaten. Have I been harmed? Yup. C: I don't wake up, you carry me back home and I am not aware anything happened. Have I been harmed? Hmm?
Hypothetical situation 2: I have a fear (again, with reason) of having my image appear in "Austria". You take a photo of me, in my hammock and publish it on your Pbase site. A: An "Austrian" government agency scans all public photo albums using facial recognition software and finds my picture, finds me, and I leave the rest to your imagination. Have I been harmed? B: I find out about the photo first, change my name, and move to another part of the country. Have I been harmed? C: I don't know it happened, and the "Austrians" miss it as well. Have I been harmed?
It has been stated that the low probablility of harm is a valid reason to continue to be allowed to publish on the web without restriction. Just the possibility of harm from second had smoke, has been deemed reason to ban smoking from almost all indoor public gathering places, and has, in some cases, been banned even outdoors. Small probability or not, the denial of people's ability to decide whether or not to breathe it, has been considered justification. Similarly, the denial of a person's ability to choose whether or not to have his image appear in a place where harm COULD occur as a result, MAY end up being consideed justification to require consent. (And if it comes to that, it would likely mean, in writing, and the burden would be on the publisher - you to maintain the documentation)
There is a considerable difference between personal web pages and works published by newspapers, magazines, and other media outlets. The difference being that publication by commercial entities is subject to editorial and legal review, as well as the requirements of advertisers and subscribers. Personal web pages are not subject to anything but the whims of the person, and rules of the owner of the site. Guess what could change?
So I am not misunderstood, I will state that I am not advocating changes to laws, but rather cautioning that the laws could and very likely will, change. There appears to be quite a backlash growing regarding just this issue. It only takes one highly emotional issue. Remember the Lindbergh baby? (probably not, but you've likely heard of the incident) JFK and RFK assasinations? September 11, 2001? The changes almost always go too far in the way of restrictions, and it is a long hard road to win back freedom, if ever.
brian
You really have to come up with better examples then someone being kidnapped, and another person having a deep seated neurosis. If this is the criteria then every news picture of many Muslim sects violates their rights not to have a image made of them.

I'm sure the real world is full of better examples that I can reasonanly respond to.

I will say this however - Any change in existing US Law will not have any practical effect on people having their image published. Any and all such laws will wind up being selectively enforced to protect government and private institutions caught in illegal acts and activities. This is already happening in England, whose laws resemble those of the US, but have addendums NOW tacted on which allow the authorities to violate these laws any time they damn well please. That the true justification of these laws will never be mentioned - Much like the recent NYC attempt to defacto ban photographing government acts.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2009, 3:09 PM   #147
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
Once Ive put my words on the internet you or anyone can do whatever with them as you want. Knock yourself out. But if my words were put on the internet by you or anyone else that is another matter entirely. So what is your point?
Making stupid analogies like taping someone in the street is like doing it in the bathroom. Why mention bathroom? Thats it get off topic again. I said it simple enough -- IN THE STREET. There are parabolic dishes and enough gyzmos and gadgets that secretly taping private conversations is easy enough. At this point Im gonna bet Tcav wants to pop in and say the sound waves dont belong to me and he is free to tape a few. Well sorry but there are laws about that no matter how many times Bush paid no attention to them at all. So I will repeat myself s-l-o-w-l-y so you can grasp what Im saying. Is it ok for someone to tape record your private conversation while in the street and then post it on the net? I think that is a YES or NO answer with a little explanation if you care to give one.
It's illegal to surreptitiously record your private speech. Doesn't matter where the location is. If you choose to raise your voice, it is no longer illegal, because it is no longer private. There was in fact a recent Court Case in which someone recorded a married couples argument from the street. He was sued, and they lost, because their speech was so loud, as to no longer have "a reasonable expectation of privacy." No doubt this matter will arise again and again in the Courts - But as it stands, such is existing law. In the same sense, while it's illegal for me to photograph you nude in a changing room, or a public sauna - If you choose to walk around naked in the street, you are subject to being photographed.

And sorry, no, just because an argument demolishes your point, does not make it a "stupid analogy."

You not me, have stated that your right to privacy exists EVEN if you are in public. If this is true, then it MUST include speech, as well as your image. And I am pointing out the fallacies in this argument. Just as you can expect privacy when you are speaking in a manner where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy - If you CHOOSE to make that conversation public, I can record it to my hearts content.

I missed this:

"Once Ive put my words on the internet you or anyone can do whatever with them as you want. Knock yourself out. But if my words were put on the internet by you or anyone else that is another matter entirely. So what is your point?"

Anything you say to me, I can post on the Internet. I can publish in a newspaper. You have absolutely NO RIGHT to prevent or stop me from doing this. You choose to speak to me, or choose to speak in a non private manner. That's the price you pay for making that choice.

Dave

Last edited by Chato; Sep 27, 2009 at 3:32 PM. Reason: Adding a point
Chato is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2009, 4:49 PM   #148
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

If Im talking with you and you post on the internet OUR conversation, while I might not like it, that might be legally ok but I still wouldnt like it without my consent. But thats NOT what this is about. Im talking about recording a conversation that has nothing at all to do with you and then posting it. DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE? When you have changed your parabolic mike for a camera and sneekily photograph an individual and post it, its the same thing and just as wrong in my opinion.
All this banter comes down to one point. If you post on the internet the image of an individual without their knowledge then you are an irresponsible thoughtless person of low moral fibre. You have made this perfectly clear and I see no reason for you to continually amplify this point. Anyone else have something to add?
Bynx is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2009, 6:08 PM   #149
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
If Im talking with you and you post on the internet OUR conversation, while I might not like it, that might be legally ok but I still wouldnt like it without my consent. But thats NOT what this is about. Im talking about recording a conversation that has nothing at all to do with you and then posting it. DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE? When you have changed your parabolic mike for a camera and sneekily photograph an individual and post it, its the same thing and just as wrong in my opinion.
All this banter comes down to one point. If you post on the internet the image of an individual without their knowledge then you are an irresponsible thoughtless person of low moral fibre. You have made this perfectly clear and I see no reason for you to continually amplify this point. Anyone else have something to add?
"Im talking about recording a conversation that has nothing at all to do with you and then posting it. DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?"

I can post any conversation that meets the requirements of the law. Doesn't matter WHO the conversation is about, as long as you made the conversation public, and legally gave up your "expectation of privacy"

"When you have changed your parabolic mike for a camera and sneekily photograph an individual and post it, its the same thing and just as wrong in my opinion."

Your picture, is not private unless you are in a private place. I don't need a parabolic mic if you choose to speak loud enough to be over heard by someone making no attempt to spy on you.

Your analogy is flawed. Use of the parabolic mic is illegal because you spoke in a situation where you had an expectation of privacy. No such expectation exists, where you speak loud enough to be overheard. Nor is your image private unless you are in a place where you expect privacy.

But MY point, which you refuse to grasp, is that you have legal redress for a photograph, you have NO LEGAL recourse to an accurate rendition of your words. Indeed, it is probablamatic at best if I posted speech of yours, which while accurate, was out of context.

And I will ask you another question. Would you be prepared to use violence if someone accurately posted your words, and that post caused you harm? Does it upset you as much as this question of photography? Would you call such a person one of "low moral fiber?"

In that situation you have no legal recourse, whereas if I posted an image of you, you WOULD have legal recourse, even if the harm was a stretch of the imagination.

Honestly Bynx, you go ballistic about an image which is harmless, and will let slide speech which can be very harmful indeed.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2009, 6:44 PM   #150
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

You continually try to make me feel bad because I have concern for the individual. You on the other hand have no moral fibre but play to your own selfish interests. What more can be said about that. Im not answering or responding to any more of your silly responses.
Bynx is offline  
 
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:58 AM.