There are a lot of things I would like and not like, some of them more reasonable than others. If government is intended to prevent violation of rights, ‘not liking’ being photographed in public seems a poor justification for imprisoning someone.
I 100% prefer the status quo to the idea proposed here. I understand that some people would rather not be pictured, but I don't think that should override the right of others to make images in public spaces (or private spaces with suitable permission).
It's surprising that this is allowed in the US at all. For a country that values personal freedoms, the legalization of being photographed against one's will is unexpected.
As a non-photographer, I absolutely don't consent to having my photo taken for public display. For a private collection, that's a different matter, provided care is taken to make that photo inaccessible to the public. If a photographer is to make money off of my appearance, I want to make sure it's done with consent.
It's just my personal opinion. If someone is clearly trying to remain undisturbed, I find it very disrespectful to distribute pictures of their face and home without their consent.
I disagree with this sentiment. To give an example that is a bit more emotional, I would strongly object to some stranger taking pictures of a young child playing in a public park.
In most countries you have no right not to be photographed (by anyone) when in public (by definition being in public is not being in private). I fully support this with the exception of the homeless (and I think it does somewhat support the right to cover your face in public if you wish).
I wish it were more oppressive actually, like maybe they could arrest and charge people who take upskirt photos instead of tacitly accepting that it's normal and trying to make it impossible.
Obviously consent is the issue. It's the releasing of someone's personal pictures without that person's consent that I'm considering to be the unwanted activity.
I understand that people may have particularly strong reasons no not wanting to be photographed in public, but the strength of their conviction is not in itself necessarily a reason to respect those reasons. For example, lots of people strongly think that Bill Gates is using vaccines to insert microchips for surveillance purposes. Should we respect those ideas?
And yes, the surveillance state is a real thing, so I wouldn't go so far as to say that everyone's concerns are completely unfounded, but at least some of the time, the overall logic and philosophical underpinnings of their reasoning are not well considered. Do they really want to restrict the rights of others in a way that may end up harming them? Wouldn't they in fact be grateful if (without consent) a villain was caught on video attacking them, or if a kidnapper (without signing a release) was caught on video putting a child in a van? Some might conclude that only well-behaved people have a right to public privacy, and think no further about the full implications of that.
But, technology has created this problem, and may very well soon solve it. First, the increasing spread of deepfakes enables people to at least facially deny that the image in a photo is theirs. Second, the rise of deep learning means that it's becoming increasingly possible for photographers to alter photos of real people so that the faces in street photos are replaced with realistic GAN-generated faces that are distinct from the original face, but the expressions and everything else stay the same. It's not hard to imagine that that may become standard etiquette, another decade or two down the line. What a time to be alive.
I acknowledge that within a country, state, city, or on private property, I have no expectation for privacy from being recorded other than a few customary exceptions based on taboos against nudity, such as in the restroom or dressing rooms.
I understand a necessity for sometimes being taped for security purposes when I am near a country, state, city, or private property, and although I haven't consented, I accept that it's within the material interests of their management to monitor potential dangers nearby. I, however, expect that these materials will be used only for those purposes, and destroyed after they are not useful for those purposes. I expect this because I haven't consented to any use at all, but accept conditionally that socially, we think that this a legitimate usage.
I extend this to personal space: if someone wants to wear cameras to tape around their own bodies for security purposes i.e. to mitigate against the potential of someone committing a crime against their person, I accept that, but only for those reasons, and I expect no other use of the images, and for them to be destroyed after they have served that purpose. A person's eyes operate in a similar fashion, and I certainly cannot demand that people not look at me.
I also cannot demand that people not think about me, so I ask no control about the stories people tell about what they have seen (unless previously agreed), as those stories have been interpreted by a mind, are a significant transformation, and are really the essence of an individual and the most basic natural right if there is any such thing.
If I don't verbally object, I accept that a photograph taken of me that I am clearly aware of (if I see the camera in operation) can be assumed to have been consented to.
Outside of this, stay away from me. It's insane that photographers, people who completely make a living off of copyright because what they've done often takes very little creativity and can be reproduced trivially, are so cavalier about what other people can say no to.
The article shows this same attitude clearly. It starts with a covert argument, made covert because it is obviously not good, but not left out because it functions as an attack on people who question displaying and selling creepshots that you've taken of women in the subway. It then moves to what it thinks are two clear arguments (although the second is essentially just a restatement of the covert argument, but with a philosophical tone meant to make it sound more serious.) It then gish-gallops around, repeating itself with different rephrasings, and making declarations sound like observations.
-----
Covert Argument Zero: People who complain about a photograph taken without consent, in the author's experience, are not the ones in the photograph, but other people.
Answer: This is a barely tarted up version of the universal "troublemakers and agitators" argument. I'd note that, in general, more people see a photo than are in that photo, so the vast majority of people questioning its ethics would be expected to be among the people who see the photo. The article itself cites a lawsuit from the subject of a photo, but only to say "the courts think I should be able to do this too, although I'm still going to make an ethical argument and not hide behind the law, but the law supports me, or people doing things even worse than me."
-----
One: If you ask for consent, the picture won't be candid, and I prefer a candid picture. Also, the subject may ask for some editorial control over their image, and I don't want to give it to them because they may not like a photo that I like.
Answer: There is no part of ethical decision-making that requires preserving your business model.
-----
Two: a) What you like or don't like doesn't define what is right and wrong. In fact, "society" has agreed that I am right and you are wrong by not unanimously determining that I am wrong. Also, b) people cannot be harmed by photography which is anonymous[?], and in a public space[?].
Answer: This starts with an immediate hypocrisy in a). After declaring that consent wasn't necessary because with consent, you can't get the photo you want and you don't get the editorial control you demand, the author continues with an argument that personal preferences don't define what is right or wrong. She then declares that all is allowed unless it is universally condemned, notes that the type of photography she wants to do is not universally condemned, and makes an arbitrary declaration about an example behavior being universally condemned. Even worse, the author does it tautologically: "inappropriate touching" has been "universally determined to be flat-out wrong." No shit. "Inappropriate photography" is the same. When you put the adjective "inappropriate" in front of something, you're limiting your discussion to what is "not appropriate." This is a discussion about what is not appropriate. If your answer is "things that are inappropriate," you're not being responsive.
And b): is a simple declaration that photography cannot be harmful in the "anonymity of a public space." None of this discussion has been about people who are anonymous, all of it has been about people who are identifiable and who have not given consent. I'm going to guess that the "anonymity of a public space" being referred to here is the fact that since the photographer hasn't asked for consent, the subject is anonymous to the photographer. This is unbelievably solipsistic. It's just impossible for the author to escape the perspective of someone who is making a living from this, and the confidence that the subject is only important from the photographers' point of view (and always really desires this relationship although troublemakers are trying to get in the way.) No matter how anonymous I am to you, I guarantee that there exist other people that recognize me, whether or not I'm sharing a public space with you.
-----
The remainder are statements posing as arguments:
Q1: You are being photographed by other people outside.
A1: That does not mean that I consent to be photographed by you. I have a different relationship to each of the entities photographing me which imply various levels of consent. Just because I have sex with everyone else does not mean I'm obligated to have sex with you.
Q2: When you enter a public space, a lot of expectations for your privacy must be overridden.
A2: Why should you in particular be one of the people allowed to override them? Other people have administration and security considerations that may override my personal preferences. You have nothing but the desire to photograph me.
Q3: The difference between a surveillance camera and a photographer is intention.
A3: This intentionally narrows the world to "surveillance camera" and artistic photography, in order to use an algorithmic defense. Algorithms are by nature fine, because they don't intend anything. Obvious bullshit. Algorithms have the intention of the people who set them up. The intention of a security camera is security. Without that intention, it fails to be a security camera, and reverts to being a camera.
Q4: If the intention of the photographer is to ridicule or expose the individual, this "veers dangerously close" to being unethical. If the intention of the photographer is to masturbate, or to help others masturbate, it's obviously unethical.
A4: These are more personal declarations of universal condemnation disguised as deep ethical truths. If anything, the law has made more exceptions for photography meant to ridicule or expose individuals than photography that does not, because it becomes journalistic.
Q5: To conflate what she does to photography that ridicules, exposes, or arouses sexually is reckless and creates fear. This fear may result in people not wanting to be photographed, and makes them think that a photographer should be bound by their personal preferences.
A5: Tell me more about your problems, and why I'm a bad person for causing them.
Q6: is a random list of statements about how, actually, everything is alright and good. 1) There's war, but everybody can win, 2) there is no human sacrifice, 3) We are already protected from photographers doing what they want to do with an image [are we?], 4) specialized spying equipment like drones are illegal [why?], 5) A photographer can be tried for libel if there is a will to misrepresent [why?], 6) you can't use an image for commercial purposes without a consent form [is exhibiting, posting on twitter, or selling an image commercial, or do you just mean ads and porn?], 7) You can't use an image for an an ad [ah, you left out porn.]
Q7: "The law does its due diligence in safeguarding the subject"
A7: This is not an argument, this is a conclusion. It was a conclusion obvious from every sentence from the first on.
I’ve seen similar interactions where people seem to think they have a lot more power over their image than they do legally, or certainly seem like, to me, ethical should have.
I was in a local public street market and I was trying to take a picture of an o next sitting on a vendor’s table (not sure if it was a lamp, sculpture, or something else).
The guy became very irate, came out from behind the table, started yelling, bumped his chest to mine, and said I couldn’t take a picture and that I had to leave or he would call “management” and “the police.”
It was very odd and interesting because he’s set up in a public place. He wasn’t really up for discussion, but when I said that it was legal to take pictures of public spaces he said that he didn’t want me to and if I didn’t respect his wishes I had to leave. I was standing in the street where his table was set up, so it was doubly odd.
Legally, in the US, it’s fine to take photos in public spaces (and usually even sell them) [0] but I can’t find opinion poll data to see if it’s common for people to think this should be restricted.
I try to think of how this will play out given trends in tech and transhumanism. Eventually we’ll likely have total clarity archives of everything we experience. How do we balance people’s freedom to their own senses vs people’s preferences?
I think we’re covered with current laws to prevent illegal acts done with the photos (fraud, harassment, etc). But not sure what we should do to stop photos or help people not care about photos.
Or perhaps view 'image possession' differently? If they're not a relation, not a photo from some sort of gathering where the possessor was present and the photo consensually taken, then.. the intent in possessing the photo is 'obviously' not good?
Really I'm just thinking about your comment in isolation though - as a whole I don't think this is a good idea, it perhaps doesn't have to be illegal but I don't personally see a need for social standards to 'slip'. (But they're not made by one person, nor one parliament, and that's fine, maybe I am in the minority.)
Imagine if you take a picture of police doing something wrong in a public place with no legal expectation of privacy, and someone who happens to be in the photo, bystander or not, objects to being photographed under this policy.
reply