[HN Gopher] What if I don't want videos of my hobby time availab...
___________________________________________________________________
What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the
world?
Author : speckx
Score : 605 points
Date : 2025-09-29 11:28 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (neilzone.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (neilzone.co.uk)
| maxehmookau wrote:
| I agree and it bugs me too.
|
| Sometimes I just want to enjoy a thing with other people enjoying
| a thing without any expectation that it might end up as "content"
| to be monetized by the algorithm.
|
| I don't look forward to mass adoption of things like Meta
| glasses, where even the mundane examples of _going outside_ are
| all content opportunities waiting to happen.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| >I don't look forward to mass adoption of things like Meta
| glasses, where even the mundane examples of _going outside_ are
| all content opportunities waiting to happen.
|
| My first experience akin to this happened when I was at the
| grocery store during Covid. This guy stood near the checkout
| lines and just did a big arc with his phone filming all of us
| and mocking masks. Like the author of the blog sometimes I'm
| just like "it's not worth it" but I had one of my kids with me
| and when I asked the guy to stop, he started ranting at me
| about how he uses an app that blurs faces, it's a free country,
| etc. I just moved on but it's like... dude, we're all just
| trying to get through the day out here and I'm with my kid at
| the grocery store. Do I really need to be putting up with this
| crap?
|
| I imagine if people actually start wearing any of these smart
| glasses in any appreciable number these experiences will be
| sadly pretty typical.
| maxehmookau wrote:
| Yeah, because he's right, it is a free country. He shouldn't
| be arrested, or thrown in prison for it.
|
| But I'm also free to apply societal pressure to behave like a
| grown-up.
| mapontosevenths wrote:
| > societal pressure to behave like a grown-up.
|
| I think this is the key.
|
| It might be legal, but it's not polite. It's a bit like
| blasting crappy music from your phone on the bus without
| headphones. Grown ups should know better.
| maxehmookau wrote:
| > It might be legal, but it's not polite.
|
| Too many folks forget this.
|
| Do what you want, but I'll tell you if I don't like it.
| Others might too.
|
| They're not infringing on your rights, but it might make
| you a little uncomfortable.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| 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
| partner's/client's/vendor's face anytime there is a minor
| disagreement or discussion about details. 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.
| maxehmookau wrote:
| > 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.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| I know when I freelanced if somebody started frivolously
| pointing to the contract I immediately determined I
| wasn't working with them anymore afterwards. Luckily I
| can only recall like two times that happened
| octo888 wrote:
| We Brits don't speak up enough in general. An e.g. German would
| have no qualms about going up to the person filming and making
| their concerns known. That's exactly why it's become normalised
|
| Also many people just flip out even about the most reasonable of
| requests.
| daveoc64 wrote:
| >We Brits don't speak up enough in general.
|
| They would be wrong to, given that it's legal to take
| photographs or videos in a public place.
|
| There is no expectation of privacy in a public place in the UK.
| octo888 wrote:
| The law is not a moral compass
| cr3ative wrote:
| Airsoft fields are generally private property.
| Peritract wrote:
| How do you rationalise being pro-photography in public but
| anti free speech?
| 1gn15 wrote:
| If someone went up to me and "made their concerns known", I
| think I'd likely just walk away. It's the best way to defuse
| the situation.
| octo888 wrote:
| So point blank refusal to listen to someone's concerns? Very
| on brand for the society we live in today. As long as
| something is legal, it's fine right.
|
| Also not sure why you assumed there was any situation to be
| "defused". Weird. I guess you may be the type I referred to
| in my last paragraph
| stronglikedan wrote:
| > So point blank refusal to listen to someone's concerns?
|
| If you know you're just going to remain in disagreement,
| then hell yes. It's not worth the conflict. Now, if they
| could point to a law I was breaking, then maybe I'd
| entertain them for a minute, but this is not that.
| 31337Logic wrote:
| A very valid and timely concern, in my opinion!
| tiahura wrote:
| He acknowledges the issue in the article, but doesn't seem to
| grasp it fully.
|
| Public means not private. What you do in public is not private.
| In presumptive free societies, when in public, one is allowed to
| notice what others are doing in public. Secret is the opposite of
| public.
|
| The paranoia around being seen feels a lot like the other
| reptile-brain based phobias like fear of poisoning with vaccines.
| tietjens wrote:
| I think this argument is logically flawed. When you say public
| means not private you are glossing over the fact that public
| never before meant "available via digital media to the world."
| Instead it mean a public which had a localized context. Doesn't
| mean you are wrong, but you're paving over this obvious fact.
| haskellshill wrote:
| 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?
| sandblast wrote:
| I think it's similar to the difference between "the cop
| watching me when I'm near them and are aware of it" and
| "the cop watching me all the time, wherever I go and I
| can't know anything about this" (which would be impossible
| before cameras).
| tietjens wrote:
| I feel that there is a difference between being in the
| public sphere of the community one exists in, and being in
| a public sphere that is global and free of any context.
| Lots of questions pop up when I try to follow that line of
| thought.
| haskellshill wrote:
| Questions such as?
| nemomarx wrote:
| There's a clear difference in scale between "people who
| also go to a private airsoft meetup with me will see me"
| and "the entire global population can see me", right?
| haskellshill wrote:
| Okay, and? There's a difference between one person seeing
| me in public and two, but no meaningful difference
| detaro wrote:
| 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 thing and basically nobody
| complains that I can see your license plate when I walk
| past your car or write it down if needed, but thousands
| or millions of cameras recording all traffic and logging
| plates are something people are concerned about, even if
| its completely legal in some places)
|
| What was that Larry Ellison quote that came up again over
| the weekend?
|
| EDIT: or to bring a specific real-world example: A friend
| of mine does classes at a local studio that also offers
| martial arts courses, and some of the local right-wing
| bubble has gotten it in their head that this has to be
| "antifa combat training" and keeps screaming that this
| needs to be monitored. The current local government has
| been ignoring them, but a lot of people are probably
| quite happy now that there isn't an easy-to-get public
| record of who was there and "needs a visit" just because
| some influencer needed to film her dance lessons.
| tmm wrote:
| The difference is being seen in public is ephemeral and
| being recorded in public is eternal. In the former, your
| actions exist in fallible human memories for a short while
| at most; in the latter there is a permanent digital record
| of you, geotagged and time stamped and available for
| perfect recall forever.
| haskellshill wrote:
| And that's bad because?
| pseidemann wrote:
| 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.
| t-3 wrote:
| 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.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| 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 course, that ship has sailed in much of the world,
| with the ubiquity of surveillance and the dearth of
| opposition.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| "noticing" is not the same as "permanently documenting and
| broadcasting to the internet". Used to be one needed to get
| signed photo releases from passerbys who appeared in your
| shots...
| dazzawazza wrote:
| yep, it's the permanent nature of the recording put in to the
| public sphere that is the game changer for me.
|
| I accept I am visible in public to all who share a space but
| I do not accept that the ephemeral nature of my existence in
| that space should be violated.
| mapontosevenths wrote:
| Any chance you're relatively young?
|
| I've noticed that folks born after some point in the early
| 2000's tend to feel this way, and they don't even realize that
| the survellience in 1984 was meant to be problematic, or why it
| might feel that way to others
|
| It seems that the panopticon has been normalized successfully.
| tiahura wrote:
| Old. If I don't want to be seen somewhere, I either: don't go
| there, or sneak. If I sneak and get caught, I should've snuck
| better.
| arichard123 wrote:
| Airsoft is probably played in a private woodland.
| hamjilkjr wrote:
| I think doing a members-only activity on private grounds is the
| opposite of public
| tietjens wrote:
| This made me chuckle remembering the time a friend photographed a
| dog in a bicycle in Berlin and was yelled at by the owner until
| the photo was deleted. Photographing a pet crossed a big red
| privacy line. Seems absurd, but I think sensitivity to the
| phenomenon the author is noting will vary by country.
| Simulacra wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/642/
| op00to wrote:
| What if the dog was on the lam?
| 1gn15 wrote:
| That does sound absurd indeed.
| homeonthemtn wrote:
| I was having a similar discussion regarding the Renn faire this
| weekend. It's silly fun, but it used to be you could dress up as
| your persona and escape for a while (see also: larping, SCA, or
| really any number of similar outlets) . However now everything is
| being recorded, and those recordings act both as unwanted
| publicity and as a method of cultural mining and extraction
|
| What once was a funny little niche character at the faire is now
| a TikTok tourist spot.
|
| Where once you could dress up as your pseudo anonymous alter ego
| with friends and have fun, now you get recorded without consent
| and get to enjoy all the perks that can come with
|
| Ultimately it will be up to us as a society to determine what is
| acceptable or how to communicate boundaries for this new element
| in our culture, with the understanding (to the authors point)
| that some of us will be against it and others will be
| enthusiastically for it.
| ofrzeta wrote:
| Maybe off-topic and patronizing .. sorry about that.
|
| "Running around in the woods, firing small plastic pellets at
| other people, in pursuit of a contrived-to-be-fun mission, turns
| out to be, well, fun."
|
| I was wondering if there are no biodegradable bullets for Airsoft
| and found out that they exist. Maybe a better solution than
| plastic in the woods.
| piqufoh wrote:
| Not patronising, this was exactly my first (and off-topic)
| thought as well.
|
| We have lived in our house for +15 years and we still regularly
| find small fluorescent yellow ball bearings in the garden soil
| from the previous owners family. These things are here to stay
| noeltock wrote:
| Most of them usually are.
| lm28469 wrote:
| They make PLA ones, advertised as biodegradable, but AFAIK the
| settings for them to biodegrade never happen in nature, it's
| ever so slightly better than the alternatives but far from
| perfect, or even good.
|
| https://www.filamentive.com/the-truth-about-the-biodegradabi...
|
| > PLA is only biodegradable under industrial composting
| conditions and anaerobic digestion - there is no evidence of
| PLA being biodegradable in soil, home compost or landfill
| environment.
| Gigachad wrote:
| PLA is also commonly mixed with mystery additives which
| likely aren't biodegradable at all.
| ofrzeta wrote:
| Yeah, that's a bit of a sham. I was thinking like compressed
| paper or something.
| mcv wrote:
| I read up on PLA when I got my 3D printer because it's
| popular material for that. From what I understand, it's
| biodegradable above 50deg C. Not something you'll find
| outside Death Valley. Still better than most other options,
| but it would be nice if we had something that was stable for
| weeks and then degrades nicely.
| latexr wrote:
| > From what I understand, it's biodegradable above 50deg C.
| Not something you'll find outside Death Valley.
|
| We're not that far off in Europe. Give it a couple of years
| more and climate change will make sure we get there.
|
| https://jakubmarian.com/highest-recorded-temperature-by-
| coun...
| lm28469 wrote:
| Not all PLA are created equal though. Raw PLA pellets won't
| behave the same way a 3d printer filament choke full of
| dyes, additives to make them more UV resistance, &c.
|
| There are plenty of posts of people putting 3d prints in
| compost piles, for months or years, and visually not much
| happens. Even stuff advertiser as bio don't fare that well:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tavrkWrazWI
| hedora wrote:
| If you dig up a sufficiently old landfill you'll find
| pristine newspapers.
|
| The idea that you can coat much more resilient stuff in
| PFAS and label it "biodegradable" is at least as big a
| scam as California's $0.10 "reusable" bags, or mixed
| stream recycling.
|
| I'm for taking each use of plastic, by global volume, and
| then banning them, in order.
|
| We should probably start with fishing nets.
|
| Alternatively, the industry should need to produce 200%
| as much post-consumer recycled plastic made from the same
| grade as they're manufacturing. This would act as a tax,
| strongly encouraging investment in more sustainable
| materials. Maybe drop that to 150% if the plastic in the
| product is 100% recycled.
| chamomeal wrote:
| I haven't played with airsoft since I was a kid, but I remember
| the biodegradable ones back then had issues. They would fall
| apart when you shot em, sometimes deteriorate inside the gun
| and muck it up.
|
| I'm sure they're better now, but I have no idea!
| LtdJorge wrote:
| Most of the brands use PLA. Most of the fields (all the ones
| I've been too) require the use of biodegradable (PLA). PLA _is_
| plastic.
|
| Edit: forgot to say. In every field I've been too, there's
| millions of leftover BBs, and I've never seen one with signs of
| degradation.
| munchler wrote:
| > I occasionally see people saying "well, if you don't want to be
| in photos published online, don't be in public spaces".
|
| > This is nonsense, for a number of reasons. Clearly, one should
| be able to exist in society, including going outside one's own
| home, without needing to accept this kind of thing.
|
| Sorry, that's not clear to me at all. If you're going to accuse
| other people of "nonsense", you should probably avoid circular
| reasoning yourself.
| daveidol wrote:
| Agreed. Was going to post the same thing. It's very much a
| debatable position.
| jen729w wrote:
| I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms
| from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video
| camera on? Who's to say how much of you I have in the shot? Do
| you feature? Did you flash by? Are you blurred? Recognisable?
|
| I was shooting video of a car park exit last year. (I was trying
| to prove to the shopping centre owners that it was dangerous.)
| Mundane footage. Some lady drives out in her car and sees me.
| Winds the window down and starts on the _you don 't have the
| right to film me_ carry-on.
|
| I politely informed her that, I'm sorry, but I do. She's in
| public. That's the law (in Australia).
|
| Another fun one, while I'm here. C. 2010, we're shooting a music
| video in central Melbourne. We're on the public pavement. There's
| a bank ATM waaaay in the background. Bank security come out.
| _Sorry mate, you can 't film here_.
|
| We told them, we can. We're on public land. So they call the
| cops. We politely wait for the cops. The cops turn up.
|
| "This sounded much more interesting on the radio", the cop says.
| They left us alone to finish the shoot.
| mothballed wrote:
| ... The bank was filming the ATM the whole time.
|
| There are a lot of '1A' auditors on youtube. They can be
| nasally and annoying but it's hilarious how often people go
| into a rage that they're being filmed despite the fact the
| people getting angry are doing the same to everyone else.
| sharperguy wrote:
| The venues for these things are private and so they can set
| their own rules. The author proposes a rule: A simple purple
| lanyard indicating that you don't wish to be included in the
| published film.
|
| This doesn't necessarily need to be an article, because the
| author could have just handled it with each venue individually,
| but this just gets the conversation going about general
| sentiment and wider applicability.
|
| My guess is that early on this kind of youtuber was relatively
| rare and so being captured occasionally wasn't a big deal, but
| that now the trend is catching on, a it's happening regularly
| and becoming a concern for some people.
| pitt1980 wrote:
| Aren't these venues small businesses that very much
| appreciate whatever publicity someone sharing their venue on
| social media gives them?
|
| I guess they can weigh that against their customers desire
| for privacy.
| Aurornis wrote:
| In many hobbies, recording footage and reviewing it later
| is very valuable for improving. Think about football
| players reviewing game footage as a team to discuss what
| they did well and what went wrong.
|
| Many hobbies are like this. The majority of footage people
| record on their GoPros is for themself. It's rare for
| someone to edit it into a YouTube video. Even more rare for
| someone to go see it.
|
| The AirSoft example is interesting because players where so
| much protective gear and face masks that it would be very
| difficult to recognize anyone's likeness anyway.
| fuzzehchat wrote:
| The author is a tech lawyer. I think the article is there to
| start discussion. I agree with him that if private venues
| allow people to record like this they should offer, at the
| very least, an opt out. "Purple lanyard" seems like a good
| way. It's also a pretty easy spot in post production where
| you can either blur or cut as appropriate.
| wang_li wrote:
| There is a super obvious opt out that doesn't require
| people to take special actions.
|
| Don't go to places that allow recording.
| et-al wrote:
| From the article:
|
| _I occasionally see people saying "well, if you don't
| want to be in photos published online, don't be in public
| spaces"._
|
| _This is nonsense, for a number of reasons. Clearly, one
| should be able to exist in society, including going
| outside one's own home, without needing to accept this
| kind of thing._
|
| _In any case, here, the issue is somewhat different,
| since it is a private site, where people engage in
| private activity (a hobby)._
| alex77456 wrote:
| Part of the issue is, big portion of the footage being
| recorded, is not worth recording, let alone publishing. (Except
| for personal value of the person recording, but that doesn't
| require public sharing)
|
| With the OP example, people getting recorded are not bystanders
| catching stray camera focus, they are the subject of the video.
| Without other participants, there would be little 'content'.
| Imagine going to an indoor climbing venue, recording someone
| else, and publishing just that.
| stuartjohnson12 wrote:
| Not to mention "auditors", whose goal is to use the ambiguous
| nature of feels-like-a-privacy-invasion-but-legally-isnt when
| you stick a camera in someone's face in a public place to try
| and get a rise out of people and prance around as victim.
|
| I think this is a case where the reasonable person test is
| excellent. Is this use of a camera reasonable for
| personal/professional purposes
|
| You should be expected to take reasonable steps not to
| victimise someone by use of a video camera, subject to public
| interest. That means filming strangers with intent to provoke
| them should be a crime but raging car park lady cannot
| reasonably claim to have been victimised. Consent affects
| what is reasonable without creating a duty-bound obligation
| not to film without consent.
|
| We already have "reasonable expectations of privacy", why not
| flip that?
| hermannj314 wrote:
| The idea of public and private needs a similar distinction
| like libel and defamation.
|
| Ephemeral public has no expectation of ephemeral privacy,
| but me walking down a street with a handful of people on it
| should not lead me to expect that being recorded and having
| it broadcast to the entire human race, permanently, for
| eternity.
| wang_li wrote:
| >...but me walking down a street with a handful of people
| on it should not lead me to expect...
|
| You shouldn't have an expectation either way. If
| anything, the expectation that you will not be recorded
| is more of a violation of the social contract that the
| reverse. It's a public space that can be used for many
| purposes. If the effect on bystanders is minimal then
| attempting to exclude an activity is wrong. Can we say "I
| don't want you to see me, so look away whenever I am
| out." "I don't want to wait in traffic so everyone else
| has to pull over and clear the road when I am driving."
| "I didn't consent to this smell, so this restaurant has
| to turn off their stoves and ovens hours before I will be
| coming by."
|
| Reality is that you can't exclude others if they aren't
| doing something that excludes you.
| immibis wrote:
| The way they do it in Germany is it's legal to have a
| recording that incidentally includes a person but it's
| not legal to have a recording _of_ the person.
| hermannj314 wrote:
| To be clear, I am talking about a hypothetical ought-to-
| be and not specifically discussing the current law
| anywhere.
|
| I hear you and I agree public spaces involve us working
| and coexisting together, not tailoring the public space
| to what one person wants.
|
| On the other hand, there is something in me that doesn't
| like for-profit rage bait creators monetizing how I react
| to a guy shoving a camera in my face and doing something
| irregular. I feel like it is a type of assault we don't
| have a name for yet but that should conceivably be
| criminal.
|
| I just realize that I'm acting like the those that first
| saw the printed word or a camera and felt uneasy about
| it, I am just an old man angry that video cameras and
| globalization of content exists. I'm probably just a
| luddite trying to stop the world from progressing.
| borski wrote:
| "How To With John Wilson" is an entire genre of precisely
| this.
| abxyz wrote:
| Blur the people who didn't give consent. The problem is
| cultural, not technical. Even YouTube has the native ability to
| blur out faces at the click of a button.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Obviously isn't going to work for OP case. He's playing
| airsoft. No faces are visible.
| dandellion wrote:
| Here in Spain if you don't get explicit consent you can get
| sued for publishing the video (it's fine if you only showed it
| to the shop owner and didn't publish it), but if someone tells
| you explicitly they don't want to be recorded you have to stop
| and delete the video (I assume if you refuse they can just call
| the police, but I've never seen it happen).
| randomtoast wrote:
| Well, the first step is not being sued and taken to court,
| but receiving a cease-and-desist letter. But for that to
| happen, the person that has been videoed needs to be aware of
| that his face is on YouTube, which in most cases you won't
| even notice unless it's a video with a very high click count.
| Hizonner wrote:
| > 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.
| shmel wrote:
| 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.
| soiltype wrote:
| Many people are actually quite uncomfortable with the
| prevalence of video surveillance, in fact.
|
| However, there are significant differences: 1. The camera
| is in a fixed position, 2. The footage is not typically
| shared let alone published online.
| blindriver wrote:
| You can use AI to blur anyone that doesn't give permission. You
| can't use the excuse of "it's too much work!" It should be the
| law that you can't indiscriminately video everyone for your own
| financial gain.
| WmWsjA6B29B4nfk wrote:
| Blur is boring, but swapping faces or other recognizable
| features to something similar but AI-generated sounds cool.
| TehCorwiz wrote:
| Sounds like the central idea of the "scramble suit" from A
| Scanner Darkly.
| bravura wrote:
| As an American living in Europe, I have seen Europe do "no
| cameras by default" quite successfully.
| trelane wrote:
| No _private_ cameras (maybe)
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Are dash cams / bicycle cams not ubiquitous in Europe by now?
|
| I would have thought they would be very useful for
| adjudicating high cost events such as automobile collisions,
| or even police interactions.
| gambiting wrote:
| Like most things with "Europe" - it depends, because it
| isn't one state with universal laws or even cultural
| expectations. Go to somewhere like Poland and everyone will
| have a dashcam and it's almost expected at this
| point(imho). But in neighbouring Germany you are
| technically allowed to have a dashcam, but any recording is
| legally inadmissable in any court case. So even if you have
| a recording of someone crashing into you, it can't be used
| because the other person never agreed to be recorded.
| Meanwhile Austria and Portugal have banned them completely,
| even for personal use.
| detaro wrote:
| Germany specifically doesn't like dashcams that record
| continuously. Legal ones just keep a short buffer and
| when they detect a crash or a button is pressed (or a
| voice command in fancy ones) they'll write it to storage.
| Because if something happens you have a valid reason to
| have and use footage, you just can't record people
| without a reason.
| threetonesun wrote:
| If I see someone filming me while driving I usually give them
| the finger. I suppose that's my consent for them to do whatever
| with it. I don't foolishly believe they can't do it, but I do
| suggest maybe they shouldn't.
| callc wrote:
| 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 deserve _social_ consequences.
|
| Some things should only exist at the social norms level. IMO it
| would be hunky dory if societies considered what "privacy in
| public" looks like in the modern age, and came to the
| conclusions like "no dragnets pls".
| everdrive wrote:
| >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.
| legacynl wrote:
| let's not make grand conclusions from singular
| observations, especially if they align with your own
| opinions. That's a recipe for deluding yourself.
|
| Human decency still exists as it has always done. But
| perhaps not in a form that we all agree on.
| presbyterian wrote:
| Even if what you're saying is true, and I'm skeptical that
| it is, why is the solution to give up entirely on trying to
| preserve or promote it?
| ilikecakeandpie wrote:
| I agree. I understand that there's no expectation of
| privacy in a public area and this is amplified by people
| having cameras/video recording capabilities in their
| hands than ever before. I think it's different though
| when it's at a private event though, like a birthday
| party, funeral, etc and folks shouldn't default to
| livestreaming
| lurk2 wrote:
| > 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.
|
| This is nonsense. People started taking photos of crowds
| almost as soon as the camera was invented.
| lomase wrote:
| But back then 99.99% of those pictures did not get
| published anywhere.
| lurk2 wrote:
| That's true, but what does publishing have to do with
| being indecent, and how does that relate to in-groups and
| out-groups?
| pixl97 wrote:
| >Basic human decency.
|
| If this existed we'd have a lot less problems in this world.
| worik wrote:
| It exists
|
| Life would be absolutely impossible without it
|
| The debate is about its extent
| crazygringo wrote:
| 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.
| seanw444 wrote:
| > For a forum that tends to trend libertarian
|
| Seriously? This one? This place is Reddit with more words,
| in my ever-degrading experience.
| jMyles wrote:
| > 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 area.
| drewbeck wrote:
| The post here makes it explicit that that the issue is with
| posting that video, not capturing it.
| HankStallone wrote:
| 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.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Who cares, your body will degrade and ultimately
| decompose in few short decades.
|
| If people aren't decent enough to wait till you are dead
| and bother you over the footage of you they've seen, you
| should go after them, not the person who recorded the
| footage. They are the ones who cause you inconvenience.
| ilikecakeandpie wrote:
| Young girls are killing themselves every day over
| something you're saying "who cares" about
| jMyles wrote:
| > Young girls are killing themselves every day over
| something you're saying "who cares" about
|
| ...I think this advances the point GP makes. We have
| allowed obsession over body image to take on religious
| proportions (falling off both ends of the spectrum,
| toward tiktok swimsuit edition on one end, and the burka
| on the other).
|
| Part of this obsession is the claim of ownership of every
| photon that bounces off one's skin until it is eventually
| captured by someone else's eye (biological or
| electronic).
|
| A healthy internet age is one in which we find comfort in
| our bodies, fitness in our habits, and security without
| needing to control every depiction of us.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Go after the people who make young girls think it's
| something they should do in that situation.
| footy wrote:
| The alternative is not uploading video of people doing a hobby.
|
| I don't think your situations are the same as someone appearing
| on some youtube channel without their consent every single week
| unless they opt out of participating at all.
| orangebread wrote:
| What if there was some sort of middle layer escrow holdings
| platform for users to sign up to that has your identity, facial
| biometrics, and crypto wallet. The user can also specify how
| they want their likeness used, or if they do not want to
| appear, etc.
|
| Any user uploading to a video platform has to run their video
| through this integration user-facial detection layer at some
| point in their editing pipeline. Payments are made accordingly.
|
| Just brainstorming.
| dahart wrote:
| > Do you feature?
|
| Yes, this is what the author is concerned about. There's a big
| difference between being filmed incidentally, and being filmed
| on purpose for the activity you're engaged in. Being
| accidentally in the background is one thing, while being the
| subject of a video and having the camera aimed at you is
| another. Even though public photography is also legal where I
| live, and I believe we should keep that right, if I filmed
| close-ups of people in the car park getting in and out of their
| cars, I'd expect most people would object and find it
| uncomfortable.
| prmoustache wrote:
| >I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms
| from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video
| camera on?
|
| Not every thing has to be recorded.
|
| It is like all those runners and cyclists who log and share all
| their runs/rides on Strava without even taking the time to
| figure out if it really serves a purpose other than a vain
| attention seeking.
| TehCorwiz wrote:
| This reminds me of that time secret US military bases were
| identified from serviceman's social fitness data?
|
| https://www.wired.com/story/strava-heat-map-military-
| bases-f...
|
| Honestly, the older I get the more I cherish that I grew up
| in a time before the compulsion to post literally everything.
| andiareso wrote:
| Yes? I'm not sure I understand here.
|
| If you are doing it because you're a creator on YouTube and you
| are getting paid through views on YouTube, aren't you then
| required to get release info? If it's for personal use, sure
| thing, but when you are making money on it then you should
| absolutely get releases and default to bluring non-released
| individuals.
|
| I think the bigger issue is that our laws (in the US at least)
| haven't really caught up with this gig/creator economy. It
| would be no different than a blockbuster film group filming a
| war/battle sequence and having to get permission ahead of time
| from the location and individuals.
|
| My work will have signs up or ask explicitly if they are
| filming and intend to publish. If you go to a private org with
| the intention of filming, you should follow the same rules for
| a full-budget production group.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > If you are doing it because you're a creator on YouTube and
| you are getting paid through views on YouTube, aren't you
| then required to get release info?
|
| The model release laws are usually tied to commercial use
| where some endorsement is implied.
|
| That's why your company must secure a model release when
| filming in your office: The material is being used in a
| manner related to the company and as an employee in the video
| you are implicitly part of that.
|
| If the AirSoft facility was filming customers and using that
| footage in an ad, they would probably require model release
| forms.
|
| There are freedom of speech protections covering the capture
| of likeness for artistic display, editorial use, and so on.
|
| If the YouTuber made some video in this case as an ad for
| some AirSoft product and included other people in it without
| model release forms in a way that implied they were part of
| the endorsement, they could be in trouble. If they're just
| making videos reporting on their games then I doubt there's
| an argument that you could make requiring a model release,
| even if the channel was monetized.
|
| This is also why news channels don't need to secure model
| release forms when reporting on public events. If we required
| everyone to do the model release form thing to show any video
| of them, you would never see any negative videos of
| politicians or criminals agin.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release
| forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your
| video camera on?
|
| I find it interesting how the winds have changed on this topic.
| 5-10 years ago it was a hot topic in online tech spaces (HN,
| Reddit, Slashdot and adjacent sites) about preserving your
| rights to take photos and videos in public spaces.
|
| I can understand some people preferring not to be filmed in
| public or shared commercial spaces, but ultimately if you are
| truly in public then being photographed or recorded is just
| part of the deal.
|
| I don't think some people have thought about the second-order
| effects of things like requiring model release forms for
| everyone who enters the frame. Imagine getting a ticket or
| being sued by your busybody neighbor because you took a video
| of your kids in the backyard and they walked past. Laws like
| this are frequently abused by people who want to wield power
| over others, not simply people who simply want to protect
| themselves.
|
| When you extend the thinking to topics like news reporting and
| journalism it becomes obvious why you don't want laws requiring
| everyone to give consent to have video shared of themselves in
| public: No politician would ever allow footage of themselves to
| be shared unless it's picture perfect and in line with what
| they want you to see.
| gameman144 wrote:
| I don't think the author was arguing at all that these things
| should be illegal, more just that there should be more
| consideration of other people's preferences where possible.
|
| It's also legal to play an annoying song on repeat all day on
| a quiet hiking trail, but people (rightfully) recognize that
| as improper socially.
| jMyles wrote:
| > I find it interesting how the winds have changed on this
| topic.
|
| My very very strong gut feeling is that this is an influx of
| bots muddying the waters of discussion in concert with the
| unleashing of the secret police force that is ICE.
|
| It seems to me that every real person sees the crucial
| importance of public photography in peacefully maintaining
| accountability.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Maybe our society has failed if publishing such photos is
| needed to maintain accountability... I really do not see
| that step for actually functioning society.
| jMyles wrote:
| ...we have evolved eyes, brains capable of retaining
| visual memory of what they capture, and communications
| media capable of describing and depicting those captured
| photons.
|
| If you believe in the basic right of general purpose
| computing - not just a political right, but the idea that
| general purpose computing is the lifeblood of the
| internet age - then it seems to follow logically that the
| capture of photons and depiction thereof are part of the
| functioning the commons.
| detaro wrote:
| And of course nobody in this discussion has said anything
| against photographing officials and news-worthy events.
| "You should not publish photos/videos of private
| individuals without consent or a very good reason" and "you
| should be able to freely document police activity" do not
| contradict each other.
| jMyles wrote:
| ...and how does that work when we complete the
| abolitionist struggle and no longer have a separate
| segment of society assigned to "police activity"?
| detaro wrote:
| Then we don't need to worry about documenting ICE
| activities anymore and still don't need to publish photos
| of random people without a good reason.
| jMyles wrote:
| Is that true? There are many level of exercise of
| political, social, and economic power that happen in the
| commons. The camera is a primary tool of defense against
| injustice in this area.
|
| Restrictions (especially with the force of law, but also
| social pressures) of the basic and deeply human capacity
| to capture photons and vibrations, and to make depictions
| of the results of that capture, are invariably used by
| the more powerful against the less powerful. eg: cops
| playing "copyrighted" material to prevent posting to
| youtube.
|
| Much safer and fairer is to just give ourselves the same
| rights we might imagine are afforded to an alien, 4 light
| years away, looking through an extremely powerful
| telescope. Do you suggest that earth laws extend to this
| alien? Is she prohibited from posting the activities she
| can see of ours through her telescope?
| Vrondi wrote:
| But, OP was not in a public space.
| o11c wrote:
| There are at least 3 completely distinct actions at stake
| here, and we should not pretend they are the same:
|
| 1. Taking pictures/videos for personal use.
|
| 2. Taking pictures/videos for internet fame/money.
|
| 3. Taking pictures/videos as a check on abuse of power.
|
| Most opposition now is due to #2, sometimes under the guise
| of #3; #3 also has divisions between "is it
| {illegal,unethical,immoral,weird}?"
| MatthiasPortzel wrote:
| Here's an article from 20 years ago on the subject, to
| support your memory:
|
| => https://web.archive.org/web/20040611150802/http://villagev
| oi...
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >I find it interesting how the winds have changed on this
| topic. 5-10 years ago it was a hot topic in online tech
| spaces (HN, Reddit, Slashdot and adjacent sites) about
| preserving your rights to take photos and videos in public
| spaces.
|
| I don't know about that. Aroudn this time was the peak of
| "Glassholes" for those who remember that phenomenon. People
| really didn't want someone to be potentially, passively
| recording their conversation. Would that not be a thing
| should Google re-launch Google Glass today? That might be a
| real factor given how Meta is trying to push AR glasses.
| notatoad wrote:
| I think the context of the original article is important: at an
| airsoft range, you're on private property. You've signed a
| waiver to be there, there's already rules to follow. Having
| formal rules for filming would be a totally reasonable and
| practical thing to do.
|
| Just like some gyms are accommodating to people filming
| TikTok's and some aren't, an airsoft range could have camera or
| no camera days, if that was something their players wanted.
| chb wrote:
| This. People should either be banned from filming at the
| private site, or be required to agree to some form of consent
| seeking.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| It's always a possibility that the owners of the range have
| already considered this and found there is virtually no
| market for no-camera days. Excluding your most enthusiastic
| members to include a miniscule number of camera-shy weirdos
| is unlikely to pay off.
| ibejoeb wrote:
| Well the majority of the facilities are private land, right,
| not public, right? Organize formal sessions during which
| photography is prohibited. If you don't get any takers, the
| sport might have left you behind.
| philwelch wrote:
| > Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every
| time you turn your video camera on?
|
| Either that or, if you can't get a model release, make sure to
| blur their face in editing. This used to be standard practice.
| ecshafer wrote:
| > I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release
| forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your
| video camera on?
|
| This seems reasonable to me. If its airsoft, how many people
| are involved? 10? 20? Just go around and ask people if they
| will allow you to post video of the game with them in it.
| baobun wrote:
| Shooting video for yourself is one thing, sharing it to a third
| party like Google, MS, or Apple is another. Unfortunately many
| people have been brainwashed to not consider or even understand
| the difference.
|
| I'm fine with being recorded as long as you keep it private.
| Not with that video ending up on your Drive backups or OneDrive
| etc, let alone YT.
| __float wrote:
| This is drawing a very different line from the majority of
| conversations in this thread, I imagine.
|
| "Sharing with a third party" because you have phone backups
| enabled is very different from streaming live or uploading to
| social media, like most are actually discussing here.
| baobun wrote:
| I'm replying to this
|
| > I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release
| forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn
| your video camera on?
|
| The offline alternative exists even if your OS employs dark
| UX patterns to make that frustrating. GP is the one who is
| conflating things.
| immibis wrote:
| In Germany it's generally illegal to film people apart from
| certain exceptions (mostly public events and public spaces).
| Even when filming something in public, you must be filming the
| event/space and not a person or group who happens to be
| occupying it, which is a fine distinction. Even surveillance
| cameras have strict requirements to be legal. You don't want to
| be the guy who goes to jail for having a surveillance camera,
| right?
|
| Tangentially, nightclubs put stickers over your phone cameras
| and that is a great idea.
| thesuitonym wrote:
| The alternative is for the venue to have "recording time" and
| "non recording time." If you go during non recording time,
| you're not allowed to bring cameras into the space. And if you
| don't want to be recorded, you go then. And if you want to
| record, go during recording time.
|
| Think of it like a public pool. It is unreasonable to say that
| there should be public pools that children aren't allowed into,
| but it's also unreasonable to expect all adults to want to swim
| with children. This is why we have the concept of adult swim
| time.
| andrewla wrote:
| I think there is at least something of a middle ground for
| almost-but-not-quite-public spaces and events. In this case the
| author is talking about airsoft games; it seems totally
| reasonable for the venue or organizer to enact policies,
| whether "no cameras allowed" or "purple helmet means don't show
| / blur this person".
|
| In fully public spaces I think we're pretty much out of luck,
| though I do think that laser/lidar-based countermeasures should
| be legal.
| deepsun wrote:
| Filming and publishing is different things though legally.
|
| E.g. you can film public spaces as much as you want, but be
| careful of what you post to YouTube.
| tonymet wrote:
| OP offers a reasonable idea of wearing a lanyard or badge to
| indicate you'd like to be censored out of the final video.
| that's practical and provides community enforcement -- for
| example if someone publishes a video with a subject like that,
| the community can shame them for it.
| SkyBelow wrote:
| Shouldn't it be opt in, not opt out? Wear a badge if you are
| okay being in it. People who aren't wearing it are blurred
| out or otherwise removed.
| tonymet wrote:
| that's how I would do it. but we have to start somewhere
| and maybe zoomers really do enjoy being recorded? who
| knows?
| collinstevens wrote:
| > I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release
| forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your
| video camera on?
|
| i think i would prefer this. i'd rather live in the world where
| no one can record or photograph you in public than the world
| where you're streamed or entombed in a vod for life.
| lynx97 wrote:
| Good to know you reside on the other side of the planet. I
| wouldnt want to meet you in public under any circumstances. So
| much entitlement and disregard for other people is sickening.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| The author suggests this was not a public space. Legal or not,
| it's more about not being a jerk. I think this is especially
| important in the context of a hobby, and the local community
| around that hobby. There are _easy_ ways for everyone to get
| what they want in these situations.
|
| So, why not get a release? Why not perform some light video
| editing to cut/blur out people who don't want to be there?
| These are not high bars to clear. I've done similar things, you
| have every opportunity to talk to the group and sort this out,
| and explain why you're filming and where you're publishing.
| Then people can come to an informed decision...
| Vrondi wrote:
| The the author of the article wasn't in a public area, but in a
| private area at a private event, perhaps model release forms
| are a really good idea for participants.
| ShakataGaNai wrote:
| > Another fun one, while I'm here. C. 2010, we're shooting a
| music video in central Melbourne. We're on the public pavement.
| There's a bank ATM waaaay in the background. Bank security come
| out. Sorry mate, you can't film here.
|
| > We told them, we can. We're on public land. So they call the
| cops. We politely wait for the cops. The cops turn up.
|
| Heh. As a photog I've have plenty of similar run ins with
| people...but only when wielding an SLR (or similar). Was once
| standing on a sidewalk, saw a building that looked cool, took a
| picture. I'm more into architecture than people. Security comes
| out from the lobby to accost me. I very politely told them
| "Dude, I'm on the sidewalk, you can't do shit"
|
| I also had the local transit agency threaten to call the cops
| on me for taking photos. Literally of just the platform and
| rails (without people) when I was trying to document the system
| for Wikipedia. Even though on their website it EXPLICITLY
| states that what I was doing was within their rules. Ignoring
| the fact that it was totally legal regardless.
|
| That time I just (metaphorically) ran away rather than dealing
| with a belligerent station agent. Was what I was doing wrong?
| No. Was it legal? Yes. But did I want to deal with the transit
| police? Nope.
|
| The thing that drives me batshit nuts is no one seems to care
| if you're taking a picture with a phone. The latest iPhone have
| megapixel counts in excess of many DSLR and mirrorless cameras.
| I can be _way_ more sneaky with my phone. By using a DSLR type
| camera I 'm being very public that "Hey, I'm taking a picture
| here" that should assure people, rather than scare them.
| eikenberry wrote:
| > I get it, but the alternative is what?
|
| If AI photo/video generation continues to improve then it
| shouldn't be a problem as the photo/video taking culture will
| most likely die off once people assume any photos/videos they
| see are generated.
| onion2k wrote:
| _I get it, but the alternative is what?_
|
| Don't publish the videos unless you have a good reason to.
| There is no upside to just throwing everything you record on
| the internet. People don't watch the videos, your channel is
| degraded by having tons of garbage on it, and people in the
| videos don't want to be online like that.
|
| If you stop pretending that a random video is somehow going to
| 'go viral' or make you famous, the entire problem just
| evaporates.
|
| If you want to publish videos put the effort into making good
| ones that people will actually watch, which means raising the
| bar by (in part) finding people who want to be in them. Videos
| of random people doing pretty mundane things like their hobbies
| won't turn you into the next YouTube star.
| NedF wrote:
| > I get it, but the alternative is what?
|
| Airsoft sites ban/allow videos in certain matches.
|
| Not rocket science. We manage in public spaces like toilets ok.
|
| They also point to purple lanyards in conferences and suggest
| an equivalent in Airsoft.
|
| Why is this comment going back to zero? Does Hacker News not
| have the ability to move forward? Is this a central tenant to
| the nihilism worship that is Hacker News?
| crazygringo wrote:
| The answer seems pretty simple.
|
| Ask your teammates not to take videos, or find a different group
| or a different hobby. But since they genuinely enjoy posting the
| videos, and there's nothing wrong with that, you're probably the
| one who's going to have move on.
|
| You're entitled to not _want_ videos of you taken in public
| places showing up online. But you 're not entitled to _getting_
| that outcome.
| brna-2 wrote:
| Think bigger - public spaces, streets, in general. Would be
| nice to solve this.
| paulcole wrote:
| It is solved. Videos and photos are allowed in public spaces.
| You just don't like the solution.
| brna-2 wrote:
| Heh, you could be right on this one. But on the other hand,
| if I was the one filming and I knew a person in the frame
| wanted more privacy if possible I would be glad to omit
| them or cut them out.
| crazygringo wrote:
| But you can already do that.
|
| This discussion isn't about what's polite.
|
| It's about what you think ought to be against the law.
| And being fined or thrown in jail if you break the law.
| brna-2 wrote:
| I was really thinking of imposing a framework where
| people know someones preference even when looking at the
| videos later. I would be fine even if there is no fine,
| if someone found me on one of your photos and say - look
| a lanyard, what a jerk for putting that online, without
| any additional consequence. EU came into my mind because
| of the existing GDPR and as a platform where this could
| be propagated. No I would generally not want anyone to go
| to jail even it the footage wracks my life somehow, but I
| would want a mechanism to broadcast my preference to the
| recording world.
| op00to wrote:
| Sure. They could simply ask you nicely and accept
| whatever the result is. This is the case now.
| paulcole wrote:
| But what if you weren't glad to omit them or cut them
| out?
|
| What happens then?
| crazygringo wrote:
| I disagree. It _wouldn 't_ be nice to solve it, because it
| would mean nobody could ever take a picture of anything where
| there might be anyone recognizable in the background, without
| getting them to sign some kind of model release first.
|
| Is that what you want? For innocent photography in public to
| be essentially outlawed?
| ixsploit wrote:
| Or you know, not making it public.
|
| And if you might need to make the photo public, you could
| blur the faces.
| crazygringo wrote:
| And your want to make that the law, so you get fined or
| go to jail if you don't blur everyone's face on every
| photo you post if you haven't gotten a signed consent
| from them?
| andersa wrote:
| Yes.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Well, thanks for being honest.
|
| That's not a world I would want to live in, and I guess
| I'm thankful most other people don't either.
|
| The ability to photograph is important for accountability
| and truth in a democracy, it's important to families
| wanting to document and share their trips easily, and
| it's important for art, among many other things.
| Fundamentally, it feels like a kind of freedom to me.
|
| But it's interesting to see there are people who
| disagree.
| andersa wrote:
| You can do all of those things without creating a public
| record of me.
| crazygringo wrote:
| What if I can't?
|
| What if you're in the photo? What if you're doing
| something newsworthy? Or what if you're right behind the
| person doing something newsworthy?
| andersa wrote:
| > What if you're in the photo?
|
| Blur that region before posting it with an algorithm that
| can't be reversed. The camera app could even do this
| automatically.
|
| > What if you're doing something newsworthy?
|
| Every good rule has some exceptions.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Sorry. I just don't think parents at the park who take
| photos of their kids and share them on a public site with
| friends should be legally required to blur any passerby's
| face or go to jail.
|
| If they want to do it voluntarily then great. But making
| it criminal if you don't -- I don't understand that.
| zmgsabst wrote:
| Why shouldn't they be fined for invading someone else's
| privacy because they're too lazy to touch up the photos
| on their phone? -- why should their laziness negatively
| impact others use of public space?
|
| You're just making an argument for inconveniencing others
| out of laziness -- but trying to dress it up in
| principles.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Because it's a right to be lazy. And thank goodness it
| is.
|
| You can inconvenience other people in a thousand
| different ways every day. And should be allowed to.
|
| The idea that laziness or inconvenience ought to be
| outlawed... do you realize what you're saying? The kind
| of police state you're envisioning?
|
| This _is_ a principled thing. What 's next, I get fined
| for walking slowly on the sidewalk? For holding up the
| line at the supermarket for a price check? For paying in
| dimes instead of dollar bills? Think about the legal
| principle you seem to be suggesting.
| zmgsabst wrote:
| We have numerous laws that ban those things in shared
| public spaces:
|
| - littering
|
| - jaywalking
|
| - excessive noise
|
| Etc.
|
| And we impose fines for all of those -- under the
| consistent logic that you can't infringe on others use of
| public space with your own.
|
| I'm glad that you can admit this is not about your usage
| of public spaces though -- it's just about you wanting to
| be a nuisance to others without consequence.
| crazygringo wrote:
| No, it's _not_ about _wanting_ to be a nuisance. Please
| don 't claim I said things I didn't.
|
| It's about not wanting to outlaw every possible nuisance.
| And you're right -- we do outlaw plenty of things. But we
| also have to draw the line somewhere.
|
| Jaywalking is a great example. It was finally repealed in
| NYC. Since it's fundamentally a pedestrian-first city.
|
| And public photography is one of those things where it's
| such a tiny nuisance, and the cost of regulating it would
| be so onerous, that we wisely choose not to.
| zmgsabst wrote:
| What part of those requires posting my unblurred face
| online?
| crazygringo wrote:
| Why should I legally be required to do that, and go to
| jail if I don't? What makes it so important you think it
| should be criminal not to?
| zmgsabst wrote:
| I think you should be fined for posting pictures of
| people publicly without their consent.
|
| None of those things require you to invade their privacy
| and enjoyment of public space -- you're just negatively
| impacting them because you're lazy and antisocial.
|
| Fines are how we handle such nuisances in other cases.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Nothing requires you to get upset about showing up in the
| background of someone's photo either. As far as I can
| tell, you're the one being antisocial because you're
| trying to make demands on what people do with their
| photos just because you happened to be in the frame. And
| it's not like they're trying to _sell_ the photos or
| anything.
|
| And fines aren't some kind of innocent thing. If you
| don't pay the fines, the police come to seize your
| property. If you resist, you go to jail. That's what you
| want?
|
| Again, that's just not the world I want to live in.
| zmgsabst wrote:
| You're the one trying to include people in your photos
| without their consent.
|
| Everyone should be allowed to enjoy public spaces without
| you imposing on them for your activities -- and that
| includes you taking photos.
|
| Nothing about their desire not to be photographed
| requires that you not take photographs -- just that if
| you do, without their permission and with identifiable
| features showing, you'll have to take a few seconds to
| blur that before you upload it publicly.
|
| Yes -- that's absolutely an antisocial imposition on
| their enjoyment.
|
| And yes -- you should be fined for doing that.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _You're the one trying to include people in your photos
| without their consent._
|
| You don't think people just happen to be in the
| background?
|
| > _Everyone should be allowed to enjoy public spaces
| without you imposing on them for your activities -- and
| that includes you taking photos._
|
| No, they shouldn't. It's a balance. When people play
| frisbee, that's "imposing" on me too, because it's not
| easy for me to put a blanket down in the middle of their
| game. Should they be fined too? I don't think so. I think
| I can just live with the inconvenience of walking 30 more
| seconds.
|
| And I don't even know what you're talking about with
| blurring people's faces being so easy. My camera app
| doesn't do that. And even if it did, manually clicking on
| every single face in all 40 photos from the park that
| don't belong to my friends and family? No thanks. People
| can live with their faces in the background online, just
| like I can live with people playing frisbee where I'd
| rather be sitting.
|
| I mean, what's next -- I'm not allowed to quote things
| people say in public and attribute it to them? I'm not
| allowed to say so-and-so was in this public park in a
| blog post? _You don 't have privacy in public places,
| because they're public._
| brna-2 wrote:
| For me not necessarily, I would like a mechanism for
| distinction and a culture where you respect people you
| record.
| op00to wrote:
| OP didn't respect his fellow hobbyists by asking them to
| not film him. Why should OP expect respect in return?
| andersa wrote:
| > Is that what you want?
|
| Yes. I would like to go back to a time before everyone had
| 3 different cameras with them and the ability to share
| those photos to a global network so third parties can use
| that data to track what I am doing literally everywhere.
|
| I no longer leave my house except for strictly necessary
| obligations.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Genuine question, what are you worried about that this is
| affecting how often you leave your house?
|
| What is making that the best cost-benefit analysis for
| you?
| brna-2 wrote:
| I would also want to know. Did the game of being
| incognito grow into the logic that leaving your house is
| not viable anymore or something else?
| op00to wrote:
| You sound like you may need some sort of mental health
| assistance if you no longer leave your house, especially
| because of fear of some sort of global dragnet using
| Facebook videos that you may be present in. I hope you
| can get some peace.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Absolutely at least publishing it. If you want to publish
| it on say social media. Censor in some way everyone you do
| not have explicit written consent from for that specific
| image.
| OtherShrezzing wrote:
| The article is discussing a private rather than public
| space. We've got loads of private places where photography
| is restricted - usually when that space involves physical
| exercise (gyms, pools, etc).
|
| I don't think it's unreasonable to have a level-headed
| discussion about how society and technology have evolved
| since those norms came into practice, and if they should be
| expanded now that photography is ubiquitous.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _usually when that space involves physical exercise
| (gyms, pools, etc)._
|
| You might have that wrong. It's when that space involves
| people wearing revealing clothing. And Airsoft kit is...
| not that.
|
| It's not about exercise.
| op00to wrote:
| It's solved. You can take pictures in public in the US.
| That's part of our fundamental freedoms.
| ljm wrote:
| I expect an airsoft venue is actually a private space, not a
| public one. Airsoft but-actually-in-public would have people
| concerned about a terrorist attack, not being recorded for
| insta.
|
| To that extent, the hobbyists who like to create content for
| the internet should be asking for consent since their footage,
| and arguably their clout, depends on the participation of
| everybody else in the group. Otherwise they're just traipsing
| around a private plot of land all kitted up but with nobody to
| shoot. If they're monetising that content then they are
| profiting from the OP's likeness.
|
| This is not far removed from the (fully understandable)
| blowback on influencers recording themselves (and often other
| people for rage-induced clout) inside gyms. These are also not
| public places.
| crazygringo wrote:
| If it's private then it's up to the owner.
|
| And they may very well have decided that more customers want
| to take and share videos, than there are customers who are
| bothered by it.
|
| And nobody is talking about monetizing content here. There's
| no profit. If there were, that would be a different
| conversation obviously. But the post did not bring that up.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _There is no profit._
|
| We don't know that.
| hedora wrote:
| Also, the bar of "you have no privacy if you can't figure
| out how the entity stealing your data is profiting off
| it" isn't great.
|
| At the very least, these videos are being used to train
| models. That's a good way to bypass the union contracts
| that prevent Hollywood from digitally cloning film
| extras.
| insertchatbot wrote:
| And also, some people could suffer real damages. Imagine if
| someone is lying to their wife about what they do on the
| weekend or about who they've gone to a conference with. Or
| imagine if someone has found themselves with dangerous
| enemies who discover where they go, what they do and with
| whom.
|
| At the moment, these things are not the problem of the person
| taking the video
| footy wrote:
| right. My younger sister was stalked by a crazy ex for
| years.
|
| According to some of the people here that would mean she
| had no right to participate in a regular activity.
| crazygringo wrote:
| No. It means you get a restraining order if there's a
| threat and contact the police the moment they violate it.
| We already have laws for that type of thing.
|
| Preventing anyone ever possibly taking pictures where you
| could be in the background is not the answer.
| footy wrote:
| there's a difference between
|
| > Preventing anyone ever possibly taking pictures where
| you could be in the background is not the answer.
|
| and asking not to be recorded at a recurring event.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Since you're allergic to peanuts that means everybody
| should be banned from eating peanuts and we should stop
| growing them, right?
|
| While directly providing said stalker with information
| seems like a harmful, and likely prosecutable behavior,
| the indirect providing of information is not a burden the
| general public should bear for another parties already
| illegal actions.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > Since you're allergic to peanuts that means everybody
| should be banned from eating peanuts and we should stop
| growing them, right?
|
| My kid's school strictly bans peanut products due to at
| least one kid having a severe and potentially deadly
| allergy. It seems like a reasonable and necessary
| precautions to avoid harm or injury.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Which likely increases the risk of more people getting
| peanut allergies.
|
| https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-
| releases/introducing-pe...
| ryandrake wrote:
| That link has nothing to do with the effects of
| withholding peanuts from children above 5 years old
| (school age children).
| ljm wrote:
| Peanuts aren't served on a plane just in case someone
| with a peanut allergy has a bad time as result. Peanuts
| (and other things people are deathly allergic to) are
| also not served or used as ingredients in restaurants
| where there is a risk of cross contamination.
|
| What you've done is bring back the equivalence to a
| public place so that an absurd argument can be made about
| banning peanuts wholesale.
|
| As far as any non-public situation goes, it's a simple
| discussion of consent and it's easy: just ask for it
| instead of feeling entitled to it.
| komali2 wrote:
| > Airsoft but-actually-in-public would have people concerned
| about a terrorist attack, not being recorded for insta.
|
| I live in Taiwan. My friend and I were drinking beers by the
| river one night and decided to go on a late night bike ride,
| maybe 1am. We grabbed citybikes and tooled along the river,
| which in Taipei in many places is a nice bit of pavement next
| to massive mangroves and then the river itself. We were
| coming up on a brushy bit when a squad of completely kitted
| out soldiers came out of the bush with massive rifles, night
| vision goggles, full camo, geared to the nines. My buddy and
| I both nearly fell off our bikes and were immediately
| thinking the same thing: Oh fuck the PLA is here. Common
| knowledge is they'd come up that exact river and make
| straight for the presidential palace if they were gonna do
| their thing.
|
| Turns out it was just _very enthusiastic_ airsoft players.
| Apparently you can just play it wherever in Taipei, there 's
| not really rules about it? So people play in the riversides
| at night.
|
| Their kit was ridiculous. One guy had tracer pellets. They
| let us wear their night vision goggles and shoot trees. Great
| time.
| hamjilkjr wrote:
| They could also blur the requester's face for the second or two
| it's likely in frame in the process they're very likely already
| editing the video before posting
| andersa wrote:
| We should be entitled to that.
| LtdJorge wrote:
| You can also ask for your face to be blurred.
| Tade0 wrote:
| There's also the option of having a detailed image of a penis
| on your clothing so that any sort of social media app will
| R-rate a video featuring you.
| hedora wrote:
| I wonder if this works if you use pictures of Disney
| characters instead (to generate copyright strikes, or
| mandatory relicensing fees).
|
| If the two tactics don't work separately, would they work
| when combined?
| Tade0 wrote:
| I'm embarrassed I didn't think of Disney characters first.
|
| I would suggest Pokemon (fighting monsters after all), but
| apparently Nintendo lost its edge, considering that recent
| ICE debacle.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Of course it doesn't.
|
| There aren't any social media sites that take down images
| of people wearing a Disney character on a shirt. That's not
| a thing.
|
| You have to upload actual extended direct footage of a
| Disney _movie_.
| discomrobertul8 wrote:
| Disney characters work too, from what I hear.
| HotHotLava wrote:
| If the problem starts to become big enough, I'd expect airsoft
| venues to offer special streaming or non-streaming times,
| depending on which group is bigger. Similar to how Saunas offer
| special clothed or women-only days.
| brna-2 wrote:
| Wow, such a nice idea with the purple lanyard it would be great
| to have something like this in general, walking down the streets
| someone films you and them or even YT or viewers to scan/flag the
| videos in question. I guess EU could put forth such regulation -
| no biggie. Maybe we could also create a framework on existing
| legislation - design a lanyard, put a QR on it leading to a "I do
| not consent" site. Advertise it a bit and I'm sure it would be
| newsworthy, at-least in EU, not sure about the rest of the world.
| paulcole wrote:
| > I guess EU could put forth such regulation - no biggie
|
| Yes! Another EU regulation will solve this right quick.
| brna-2 wrote:
| Well, actually this could be just a means of letting people
| know your preference without direct communication. Maybe it
| could fall under existing GDPR regulation, as an extended
| part about a public "non consent" marker.
|
| How would you solve the problem in large scale, low effort
| way?
| paulcole wrote:
| > How would you solve the problem in large scale, low
| effort way?
|
| The problem is solved in a large scale low effort way (in
| many places)! If you are in public you can be legally
| filmed.
| jve wrote:
| - I was at public park. There was an event. I remember
| there was a warning/poster/whatever - this place features
| XYZ and is being photographed. If you do not like, do not
| participate or stand here or something along the lines.
|
| - When kids came to my workplace as part of educational
| program to show how people work - we gave them out
| papers, adults had to give approval that their child will
| be photographed and photo shared on social network. If
| any would opt out, we would just photograph without him.
| I think the sole purpose of that event was to photograph
| on some background with national flag or something and
| just publish it online.
|
| Sometimes it is ridiculous, but still this thing works
| like this: the school or kindergarten wants class photo:
| please sign here that you consent. Basically this photo
| is not public but limited to families for all the
| children that attend that class. So seems kind of too
| much, but ok, can live with that.
|
| I live in EU
| paulcole wrote:
| Yes that all does seem like too much.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I think even better option is some type of public opt-in. Maybe
| purple or green screen lanyard. Publishing material of anyone
| without one would not be allowed.
|
| Doesn't seem too big ask to edit out anyone who has not opted-
| in. Especially in age of AI that should make it trivial.
| haskellshill wrote:
| 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??
| haskellshill wrote:
| Great idea, and soon there will be a "I accept to be recorded
| in public" button you need to press before you're let out of
| your house.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| Ah yes, identifying people with special items has always worked
| extremely well to protect freedoms.
| paulcole wrote:
| > Clearly, one should be able to exist in society, including
| going outside one's own home, without needing to accept this kind
| of thing.
|
| This is not clear at all to me.
|
| When you go into public you're accepting that you might be
| filmed. The reality is that you _are_ being filmed constantly.
| It's just that it bothers you sometimes.
|
| It reminds me of The Light of Other Days (a book about a society
| where technology makes any privacy impossible). Nearly everybody
| gets over it really quick and the world moves on.
|
| The good news about this is that hardly any normal person would
| ever watch these Airsoft videos for more than 5 or 10 seconds.
| cowpig wrote:
| > Nearly everybody gets over it really quick and the world
| moves on.
|
| Perhaps this article being #1 on HN right now is evidence that
| your perspective is not the same as "nearly everybody" else
| op00to wrote:
| The evidence I present is that I have never seen someone
| complain about someone else filming in public. I'm not sure
| that the articles position on HN says anything about the
| majority opinion on a topic, only that it's of interest.
| cthor wrote:
| You must not have looked very far. Here's one example from
| circa 2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN9E3vJzxk0
|
| People respond to a camera shoved in their face. It's not
| felt the same as simply being looked at.
| op00to wrote:
| I have practiced "street photography" for years, where I
| purposefully take pictures of people on the street.
| Sometimes people ask what I'm doing, I tell them, and
| they say "cool can I see the pictures"? Sometimes I send
| them a file or whatever. No one's gotten all out of sorts
| over it.
| paulcole wrote:
| To be fair the sentence prior I thought made clear I was
| referencing the plot of the book.
| detaro wrote:
| So you only have to worry about consequences from not-normal
| people, and that's the good news?
|
| EDIT: to bring a specific real-world example: A friend of mine
| does classes at a local studio that also offers martial arts
| courses, and some of the local right-wing bubble has gotten it
| in their head that this has to be "antifa combat training" and
| keeps screaming that this needs to be monitored. The current
| local government has been ignoring them, but a lot of people
| are probably quite happy now that there isn't an easy-to-get
| public record of who was there and "needs a visit".
| paulcole wrote:
| No, you only have to worry about the consequences from
| everyone.
|
| You certainly dont want the government defining "not normal"
| people. Or maybe you do!
| spacecadet wrote:
| This. Im a dick and straight up demand people exclude me or stop
| filming. Consumers are ravenous for money making content and have
| no clue what a media business privacy, consent, and compensation
| legal framework even remotely look like. As someone who produced
| a few short documentaries in the early 2000s related to
| "hobbies", I would have never done so without full consent and
| compensation...
| op00to wrote:
| I don't think you're a "dick" for politely asking people not to
| film you, unless you're unnecessarily aggressive about it.
| eterm wrote:
| 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 the idea that they're recorded
| all the time.
|
| I'm old enough thankfully to have grown up without video being
| present, that's probably not true for someone 10 years younger
| than me.
|
| There's also a big difference in my mind between, "You might be
| filmed on occassion" and, "A recording of this goes up on youtube
| every single week".
|
| With the former you can still reasonably anonymous, with the
| latter you risk becoming a side character in someone elses'
| parasocial relationship.
| muzani wrote:
| Yeah, I feel like the new generation are recorded and published
| to the world literally on their first breath, right up until
| their funeral.
|
| We had this idea that privacy violation is like pollution. But
| now it's like how our generation is used to plastic in the
| ocean and never seeing all the stars. It's just life.
| spicyusername wrote:
| My kids are in elementary and middle school and there was an
| occasion where they were at a birthday party where an older
| sibling was live streaming the event.
|
| Both my kids (and me) found it very off-putting, so there's
| some anecdata that at least some young kids still feel it's an
| invasion of privacy.
|
| Maybe not all is lost.
| siva7 wrote:
| There are lots of young people who have some conception and
| respect of privacy and there are people who haven't. That's
| not a generational thing.. It's just that those without
| awareness of boundaries have now all the tech that screams in
| their face to stream everything to the world without consent.
| I can assure you that still lots of young folks are annoyed
| by those people.
| RajT88 wrote:
| Agree. I went to a family gathering recently, and my wife's
| cousin was walking around live streaming. People were
| pissed once they figured out that private conversations
| were uploading live to the internet.
|
| The same guy did similar when his mom was on her death bed.
| Jesus Christ.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > 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.
| greenavocado wrote:
| Most states in the United States allow one one-party
| consent for audio recordings.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| They're not party to others' conversations.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| As long as someone is not hidden, or trying to be
| deceptive, then they would be considered party to the
| conversation.
|
| Someone walking around live streaming would become party
| to all the conversations.
| jon-wood wrote:
| 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.
| blackoil wrote:
| You are free to quit the party, but host won't be
| arrested for recording and sharing video.
| serial_dev wrote:
| 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.
| sdoering wrote:
| 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.
| f1shy wrote:
| This is the case where I find law in Europe better than
| USA. In germany you need consent to film or record other
| people.
|
| The downside is the misuse of the law, what happens
| constantly, to basically prohibit (at least in practice)
| ANY recording activity. Is not unheard of, I have seen
| and experienced myself quite a few times, for example, a
| tourist being stopped and asked to delete a video of a
| simple recording in a park (police called immediately),
| because a random stupid person was around and wants to
| show how good he knows his rights... (see sister comment)
| webstrand wrote:
| Under US federal law one-party consent requires that you
| actually be a party to the conversation. This is why most
| security cameras do not record audio.
|
| If you're wandering around livestreaming and picking up
| conversations you're not a participant in, it's a
| violation of federal wiretapping laws.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Presumably, a person holding up a phone live-streaming
| would be party to the conversation.
|
| If two people are talking at a party, and a third person
| obviously comes by within earshot, then the two people
| can either stop talking, or they can continue, but the
| third person is now party to the conversation.
| kjksf wrote:
| You're so obviously wrong.
|
| I watched multiple videos from Portland ICE protest,
| multiple videos of ICE arresting people, all with audio.
| Half the people at protests are recording.
|
| If you were right all that would be illegal.
|
| The magic word is: "reasonable expectation of privacy".
|
| If you're in public, like in streets, in the mall etc.
| you don't have reasonable expectation of privacy. You can
| be recorded, with audio, and it's legal.
|
| The two party consent rules only apply to private conduct
| e.g. you have a phone conversation. In states with two
| party consent the other person can't record the
| conversation without notifying you.
|
| What you describe as "US federal law" sound more like
| anti-wiretapping law i.e. I can't plant a bug in your
| house and record your conversations. Which is duh, but
| not relevant to being recorded while in public.
| webstrand wrote:
| I figured that "reasonable expectation of privacy" was a
| given in the scenario. It's a family gathering, the
| livestreamer is not being obvious about their recording,
| there's a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
|
| Your ICE protest example is performed in public, its a
| protest, its not meant to be private, thus fails the test
| of "reasonable expectation of privacy". Action taken by
| agents of the state are also public actions, this has
| been tried many times in court.
|
| Two-party consent is not federal law and varies state-by-
| state. But again it requires that you actually be a party
| to consent.
|
| And yes by "US Federal Law" I am referencing the anti-
| wiretapping laws which prohibit, among other things,
| interception of oral communication via electronic means
| unless at least one party consents.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| I'm not so sure that the family gathering scenario is
| well-defined, though. If I'm at a gathering in someone's
| house, and I'm in a room with only the person/people that
| I'm actively talking to, then I feel reasonably private
| in the sense that my words are falling only on the ears
| of intended recipients. But if I'm in a room with the
| people I'm talking to and also people I'm not talking to,
| then I acknowledge that ears beyond those involved in the
| conversation can catch wind of what I'm saying, which
| roughly equates to the absense of expectations of
| privacy.
| pessimizer wrote:
| It's important to remember that you're making this up.
| You're just sort of spontaneously interpreting
| "reasonable expectation of privacy" off the top of your
| head.
|
| It's usually simpler than that: if you see them recording
| you, and if they aren't trespassing (i.e. breaking the
| law otherwise); or you are on their property or on public
| property that they are legally permitted to use, which
| carries a posted sign telling you that you may be
| recorded, you don't have a reasonable expectation of
| privacy. Otherwise you do.*
|
| Somebody could possibly hear something has nothing to do
| with it. Consenting to being heard is not consenting to
| being recorded. But maintaining your presence in a place
| where people are allowed to record is. If it's your
| party, tell them to put it away or leave. If it's their
| party, you leave. If you are recording surreptitiously
| and you are not working with law enforcement, it's
| probably not going to be admissible in court and if you
| publish it, you're going to get sued. Depending on your
| state and local laws, you are likely to lose badly.
|
| -----
|
| [*] All of this depending specifically on how the term is
| defined in your state and local laws. For example, video
| has often been separated from audio for pragmatic
| reasons; security cameras are meant to record physical
| acts, not conversations. For a second example, many
| states have decided that sending your voice over a wire
| to a designated recipient as an electronic signal is
| already consenting for the person receiving that signal
| to be able to record it and use it as they please; others
| have not. For a rationale in the second case, imagine
| that you didn't have the right to reveal a letter that
| was sent to you.
| greenavocado wrote:
| If everyone is inside a private home, the host has not
| given permission to stream, and the streamer is
| deliberately keeping the camera/phone hidden, then no-one
| has waived their expectation of privacy, and the streamer
| is intercepting a conversation they are not a party to
| nerdsniper wrote:
| > If you're in public, like in streets, in the mall etc.
| you don't have reasonable expectation of privacy. You can
| be recorded, with audio, and it's legal.
|
| Just a note because I myself made the same argument very
| loudly 1-3 weeks ago...and was informed some states have
| different laws than I expected. Massachusetts, in
| particular.
|
| (Note that MA limits clandestine recording, not the
| obvious recording in TFA blog about airsoft -- and it has
| been neither upheld nor overturned by SCOTUS)
|
| https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-recording-
| law
|
| >>> Massachusetts makes it a crime to secretly record a
| conversation, whether the conversation is in-person or
| taking place by telephone or another medium. See Mass.
| Gen. Laws ch. 272, SS 99. Accordingly, if you are
| operating in Massachusetts, you should always inform all
| parties to a telephone call or conversation that you are
| recording, unless it is absolutely clear to everyone
| involved that you are recording (i.e., the recording is
| not "secret"). Under Massachusetts's wiretapping law, if
| a party to a conversation is aware that you are recording
| and does not want to be recorded, it is up to that person
| to leave the conversation.
|
| >>> This law applies to secret video recording when sound
| is captured. In a 2007 case, a political activist was
| convicted of violating the wiretapping statute by
| secretly recording video of a Boston University police
| sergeant during a political protest in 2006. The activist
| was shooting footage of the protest when police ordered
| him to stop and then arrested him for continuing to
| operate the camera while hiding it in his coat. As part
| of the sentencing, the court ordered the defendant to
| remove the footage from the Internet. From this case, it
| appears that you can violate the statute by secretly
| recording, even when you are in a public place.
| DrewADesign wrote:
| Wiretapping laws are set by states, and different states
| have different criteria. For example, the two-party
| consent in MA involves 'intercepting' the conversation so
| even listening on a microphone and not recording it is
| considered wiretapping, but not all states use that
| criteria. Some people, like public officials performing
| their duty in public-- e.g. cops and politicians-- can't
| have any expectation of privacy.
|
| Expectation of privacy is
| buildsjets wrote:
| Most parents will punch you in the face if you try to
| record audio of thier children without two party consent.
| greenavocado wrote:
| Do that in a public place and you will catch an assault
| and/or battery charge
| RajT88 wrote:
| Eve if legal, the guy was in the wrong.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Laws almost always vary by jurisdiction.
| hdgvhicv wrote:
| Which jurisdiction are you taking? Japan? Christmas
| Island? Cuba?
| Izkata wrote:
| 11 states in the US have two-party-consent laws. IIRC GP
| is correct about recordings of private conversations in
| these states.
| i_am_jl wrote:
| Really?
|
| What jurisdiction has that rule? Are you sure you're not
| conflating simple audio recording with a recording of
| audio telecommunications?
| GJim wrote:
| What in gods name does the law have to do with it?
| serallak wrote:
| A friend that was going to deliver a child told us about
| a dad-to-be that was going around the maternity ward
| making videos ...
| Freak_NL wrote:
| That's a good recipe for getting a black eye. The mother-
| to-be tends to be pretty much confined to her immediate
| affairs, but the partner...
|
| (I'm sure everyone is different, but I've been there as
| the father-to-be, and I would have made a good effort of
| turning that live-stream into a live-colonoscopy.)
| lsaferite wrote:
| [delayed]
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| >The same guy did similar when his mom was on her death
| bed. Jesus Christ.
|
| I am so sorry for your loss and I am out of words. Just,
| I just want to be with ya in silence for a while. I am
| sorry that you had to go through this. I am really
| speechless
| pessimizer wrote:
| Are you expressing overdramatic sympathy for the loss of
| a stranger's wife's cousin's mother? No wonder that
| cousin films and streams everything.
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| I was definitely feeling something as I didn't think of
| the stranger's wife's cousin's mother? as dying but
| rather the stranger's wife dying and that cousin
| recording it.
|
| But even now, yes you may have proved your point but
| death is so fucking weird and not talked about and
| sometimes I just get speechless, like someone just left
| the earth, let that sink in...
|
| Honestly, I can somewhat both understand why he was live
| streaming now wanting more comments/everyone's final
| messages to go to her mother but at the same time, its
| definitely privacy invasive and might show their last
| moments and something of a behaviour I don't condone but
| I just don't know, now my opinion is mixed.
| RajT88 wrote:
| Yep - was my wife's cousin's mother who died.
|
| I didn't know the lady at all. I didn't even end up
| meeting the cousin, I heard about all this after the
| fact. My wife isn't broken up either - kind of distant
| family.
| igor47 wrote:
| We need content for ML! If you don't upload every moment of
| your life, you're not doing your part for humanity.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| My own anecdotal experience is that the generational gap is
| actually the inverse of what was described above. Younger
| people seem to be very much moree acutely aware of the
| dangers of publicity and much more guarded about what they do
| in public if it could potentially end up online.
| Gigachad wrote:
| 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.
| angiolillo wrote:
| > just being seen in a small segment of a YouTube video
| with no name is a pretty minor risk
|
| It might become a slightly larger risk when image
| processing and face recognition get cheap enough that
| anyone can search to find every video/livestream/photo
| containing your face.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| 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 by name on porn sites.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| 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).
| wongarsu wrote:
| 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
| scarface_74 wrote:
| But most people don't have a discerning eye. I've never
| used a nudify site. But uploading a picture of me and my
| wife to Grok and letting it make a 6 second video is
| already pretty good. On one, the only thing I noticed was
| that the reflection in a window wasn't following the
| movement.
|
| Also, if you down sample the quality of the video, it
| would be even harder to tell it was a fake.
|
| That's neither here nor there. Would you want even a fake
| nude of you online?
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| > Would you want even a fake nude of you online?
|
| That's neither here nor there, the claim was that
| deepfakes were a replacement for actual nudes, but you're
| maybe overlooking that the actual invasiveness is an
| important part of what the abuser finds appealing about
| the real thing.
|
| Both are of course terrible, they're both abusive and
| both are becoming illegal in more and more places, but
| one is more invasive than the other.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| I'm not sure your comment is completely necessary. I'm
| well aware there are such apps--I volunteered for years
| with a women's charity so I've seen it all--but they are
| two completely different attack vectors. I "wish" that
| one could stand in for the other but the reality is
| abusers just have two new ways to harass women in top of
| ash the other age old techniques.
|
| I'm also aware there are probably a number of guys on
| this site who work in that space so just as a message to
| you if you're reading: You suck.
| everdrive wrote:
| The private spaces are still at risk. Just one kid needs
| to claim he was offended and bring a screenshot to a
| teacher and it's game over for the kids' privacy.
| lukan wrote:
| "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.
| Izkata wrote:
| Yeah, kinda happened like a decade-plus ago, when
| facebook opened up to everyone. I know I stopped using it
| when my parents (baby boomers) got on there.
| elxr wrote:
| The entire reason tiktok got so popular is the younger
| generation (born in the mid 90s to early 2000s) normalizing
| sharing so much of their lives publicly.
|
| It's given rise to a much richer form of social media and
| "personal brand" building when done well, IMO. Although I
| have noticed the tide starting to turn, with the amount of
| us-vs-them sentiment all over the internet lately.
|
| Honestly, if I was a kid just discovering social media
| today, I'd be extremely guarded too.
| detaro wrote:
| I don't think its so much an age thing. Plenty in the younger
| generations are more careful what they put online than older
| people, _because_ they have grown up /are growing up in an
| environment where it's a thing actually happening and they see
| the problems, and "I (believe I) can legally do this, so I will
| do it and don't care what you think" is a common attitude in
| older generations too, combined with lack of belief in the
| harms.
| Gigachad wrote:
| I'm Gen Z and I get how someone could be annoyed by this, but
| it's also just part of life. I get annoyed when people smoke in
| public or pointlessly honk horns at night. But you have to
| accept that being around other people means some people do
| things you aren't a fan of.
| andersa wrote:
| That's a completely ridiculous comparison. Pointlessly
| honking or smoking does not create a public record of your
| activities shared globally without your consent.
| Gigachad wrote:
| No, it just smells like shit, subjects you to a small risk
| of cancer, and the other disturbs your sleep resulting in a
| number of mental and physical health issues.
|
| I'd much rather be shown on YouTube playing a sport.
| ljlolel wrote:
| Smoking also disturbs sleep
| card_zero wrote:
| Difficult to do both at once, certainly.
| aeve890 wrote:
| >but it's also just part of life.
|
| Yeah? Who said that? Any selfish person can say the same
| about anything. "Yeah my dog shat your lawn but that's just
| part of life. Deal with it". What's part of life is different
| for everyone.
|
| >I get annoyed when people smoke in public or pointlessly
| honk horns at night.
|
| Yeah that's annoying, but neither the smoke or the honk are
| records of your private life published without consent on the
| internet, forever. So apples and oranges.
| Gigachad wrote:
| I personally don't believe that filming airsoft is
| unreasonable. It's not unreasonable for OP to not like it,
| but the majority are either fine with it or filming
| themselves. So it's a situation of either dealing with it,
| or finding a new group to hang out with.
| delichon wrote:
| Agree. This isn't about consent when he knows he'll be
| recorded and participates anyway. Putting it on a consent
| form wouldn't make it any clearer.
| humanfromearth9 wrote:
| The problem is not being filmed, when the recording is
| used in small circles. The problem is when it's published
| for the world to see.
|
| As a rule of thumb, for my children at school, I refuse
| any use of their image if it's not for something that was
| already possible in the eighties.
|
| Publishing school party pictures and videos for the whole
| world to see was impossible in the 80s, I thus don't
| allow it and if it happens, it's an invasion of their
| private life (as per Belgian law at least).
|
| Hanging on the school walls some pictures of the classes,
| or children, doing some activities: that's OK, it could
| already be done in the 80s and might be useful for the
| school community. Publishing these in a printed yearbook:
| I accept. Publishing it on the Internet in electronic
| format: this was not possible in the 80s, thus I refuse.
|
| I think this time strikes a nice balance for everyone
| involved.
|
| By the way, in Belgium, you are allowed to film in public
| places, but not to misuse the image of others if it's
| disrespecting their private life, unless for legal
| requirements.
| op00to wrote:
| Dog shit is a part of life. Shitty people are a part of
| life.
| coffeefirst wrote:
| Smoking in restaurants and bars used to be a part of life,
| until it wasn't. It took about 5 years for that shift to roll
| out pretty much everywhere. And it's so much nicer without
| it.
|
| There's nothing stopping us from saying this sucks, it's
| socially toxic, and we're not going to put up with it
| anymore.
| juliangmp wrote:
| I think that topic worked because a lot of people directly
| noticed a difference. With the filming it's honestly part
| of internet culture now. Considering its been illegal in
| Germany for as long as I remember, it still happens
| extensively. Especially when you dont know your being
| filmed.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Smoking in restaurants and bars used to be a part of life,
| until it wasn't._
|
| A couple of years ago I went to a restaurant and for some
| reason automatically told the hostess, "Two, non-smoking."
|
| She looked at me like I had lobsters crawling out of my
| ears.
| Larrikin wrote:
| Smoking in public has been banned in a number of large cities
| around the world and so has honking your horn when there is
| no threat to life.
| xxs wrote:
| >number of large cities
|
| States usually, most of EU/Europe is banned (but not
| everywhere).
| lan321 wrote:
| No threat to life sounds kinda wild.
| latexr wrote:
| > but it's also just part of life.
|
| It's not, and your two examples are perfect proof of it.
|
| Indoor smoking bans have been implemented in several
| countries.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans
|
| https://health.ec.europa.eu/tobacco/smoke-free-
| environments_...
|
| Countries applying the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic only
| allow honking in two specific situations. In addition, it's
| culturally dependent.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_horn#Regulation
|
| https://e.vnexpress.net/news/perspectives/readers-
| views/the-...
|
| Don't assume something is an immutable part of life just
| because it was in place when you were already born. Change
| can and does happen.
| _kidlike wrote:
| your way of thinking shows clearly your lack of comprehension
| on the subject... you didn't experience the world before the
| internet, so you think that the internet is "part of life".
| Let me tell you as someone that helped build it, that it
| isn't part of life. It's something that we made up, like our
| ancestors build the railways. Those were neither part of
| life. Unike the addiction to social media that was carefully
| engineered by top class psychologists, without anyone
| realizing. That shouldn't be part of life, but here we are :(
| mothballed wrote:
| Every airsoft event I've been to has been on private property.
|
| Solution here is to use a private airsoft field then make no
| filming a condition of entry. If they violate the rule,
| trespass.
| scotty79 wrote:
| That's the solution. You don't want to be recorded? Attend
| "no-recording" event. If there are no such events, tough
| luck. Market is not obligated to serve your particular needs.
| If you thing enough people care, organize it yourself.
| soiltype wrote:
| This comment doesn't engage with the topic at all - you've
| just used "the free market" as a pass to avoid any
| meaningful discussion of privacy, consent, and social
| contracts in the digital age. If your "solution" is
| literally "tough luck" (we both know "no-recording" airsoft
| events are extremely unlikely to exist) - what has this
| added to the conversation?
| scotty79 wrote:
| > we both know "no-recording" airsoft events are
| extremely unlikely to exist
|
| Let's assume it's true. What does it mean? That
| pretending to ruthlessly murder people while not being
| recorded is a niche kink and society doesn't owe this guy
| any special accomodations.
|
| Thanks to the internet, which publishing prowess he
| abhors, I'm sure, this guy will still be able to find
| group of fellow degenerates so he can have fun with his
| exact perversion down to a T.
|
| Or he can relax his requirements and perhaps attend
| swingers club instead of airsoft, because they don't
| usually record their hobby. Or keep doing pretend murders
| but relax his stance about recording it towards more
| mainstream sensibilities.
|
| Is this sufficient engagement with the topic for you?
|
| Or do I have to spell out that privacy is not special.
| You aren't organically owed anything when you are with
| other people, except for what current societal
| sensibilities dictate.
| fourseventy wrote:
| Your comment doesn't engage with the topic at all either
| bro
| mrWiz wrote:
| It sounds like your solution is to /own/ the private airsoft
| field, not just use it.
| 2d8a875f-39a2-4 wrote:
| Sounds about right.
|
| These kids have been on camera since they were in the womb. The
| delivery had a pro videographer. Parents had baby monitors with
| a video feed, later a nanny cam. Schools had cameras in the
| classrooms and busses from before first grade. Higher grades
| onwards all their peers had smartphones and social media
| accounts.
|
| Some middle aged dude who doesn't want to be on video makes no
| sense to them, like that weird uncle of yours who in 2010 had
| no phone or email address.
| squigz wrote:
| > There's also a big difference in my mind between, "You might
| be filmed on occassion" and, "A recording of this goes up on
| youtube every single week".
|
| And there's such a focus on the law and expectation of privacy
| in public places in these comments. There's a huge difference
| between someone complaining about being recorded in a small
| hobby community and complaining about being filmed on a public
| street.
| gms7777 wrote:
| 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 prevent
| people from posting" to "it'd be rude and inconsiderate to even
| ask". One person even argued that it would be rude and other
| people would judge them if they went to a wedding and didn't
| have a picture of the bride and groom.
|
| I don't think I ever felt the generational divide as acutely as
| in reading those responses, and I'm not even that old, I had
| social media when I was in high school.
| siva7 wrote:
| It could be more that those hanging around on wedding
| planning forums aren't really representative of the younger
| generation. If it's a wish of the couple, they should clearly
| communicate this on the invitation.
| squigz wrote:
| If someone asks you not to record them _at their own event_ ,
| and you do, you're an asshole.
| literalAardvark wrote:
| Not even to not record. Just to treat the pictures as
| private, which is an entirely reasonable request.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| A wedding is one of the most fundamentally public events
| that have ever existed. The purpose is so that as many
| people as possible should know that these people are taken.
|
| Asking guests to not take photos is such a faux pass that
| the couple has destroyed their reputation completely.
|
| They can have a quiet and private ceremony instead if they
| have stage fright.
| watwut wrote:
| The traditional purpose of the wedding was meeting and
| joining of families. The "as many people as possible"
| knowing about it was not a consideration all that much.
|
| > They can have a quiet and private ceremony instead if
| they have stage fright.
|
| That would be called "a wedding".
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Of course it was a huge consideration, as adultery was
| taken very seriously. And still is in some parts of the
| world.
|
| > That would be called "a wedding".
|
| That would be called a secret wedding, a very popular
| trope in old romance novels.
| ThrownOffGame wrote:
| Clandestine weddings have presented a huge problem for
| Church and State authorities at various points in space
| and time.
|
| A clandestine wedding would often leave significant doubt
| about the facts of the ritual, the participants, and
| their actual state of mind. In most places it really is
| not legal to conduct a clandestine wedding without strict
| regulation and some sort of documentation, before and
| after the fact.
|
| No officiant: invalid. No witnesses: invalid. Prior bond:
| invalid. Duress or coercion: invalid. These are all
| really, really important reasons for public ceremonies
| attended by, essentially, randos off the street.
| t-3 wrote:
| There's definitely very huge cultural differences that
| might be getting in the way here. _Many_ wedding
| traditions explicitly invite all and sundry to attend and
| witness. Most historical traditions around weddings that
| I 'm aware of treat them as a community event at the very
| least, not a private affair involving only two families.
| justinclift wrote:
| > A wedding is one of the most fundamentally public
| events that have ever existed.
|
| Not sure why you think that?
|
| Although weddings _can_ be in public places, they don 't
| have to be and it's quite common for only invited guests
| (ie not the public) to be present.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| It's still a public event even if everyone is not
| invited. English lacks the word to differentiate between
| "public" as "no secret, out in the open" and "public" as
| in "free for all and gratis".
|
| In this case we're talking about a public wedding as
| opposed to a secret wedding.
|
| Thus: A normal wedding with a normal amount of invited
| guests is one of the most non-secret events to exist.
|
| Asking for no photos is like participating in a big
| sports event as an athlete and demanding nobody takes
| photos.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > Thus: A normal wedding with a normal amount of invited
| guests is one of the most non-secret events to exist
|
| private !== secret
|
| You seem to have this concept crossed in your thinking.
| Just because people know about it doesn't make it not
| private. Try getting into an event at Davos. Try getting
| into any well known event without an invitation. You'll
| see just how not public they are.
|
| The fact that people think it is acceptable to post
| pictures of other people on their social sites says it
| all. This couple's request is not egregious. Just because
| you can't imagine not posting something doesn't mean
| everyone else thinks the same way. This is just another
| example to me of how few people think of others first,
| and only ever think about "me me me"
| carlosjobim wrote:
| > Just because people know about it doesn't make it not
| private.
|
| That's exactly what I adressed in my comment above.
| You're explaining to me exactly what I've explained to
| you.
|
| Public can mean something which has been publicized =
| made known to the general public. In this case it doesn't
| mean that everybody is invited.
|
| You have a very hostile tone, for no apparent reason.
| Feel free to blow off steam if you need to, but try at
| least to understand the argument I'm making.
| dylan604 wrote:
| "It's still a public event even if everyone is not
| invited."
|
| You are not stating the same thing. You are saying that
| an invite only is not a private event. You've apparently
| misread the bit you quoted as it is a double negative; ">
| Just because people know about it doesn't make it not
| private". Just because people know about a private event
| does not mean the event is public. Knowledge of the event
| is not what makes it private. What makes it private is
| the host's restriction of who can attend.
|
| Also, I'm not hostile. You're being defensive on an
| indefensible position and not liking the fact you are
| being called out for that position. There's a difference.
| sdoering wrote:
| If you only had made the argument you thought you made,
| but didn't. And then not even made the effort to
| understand that the point your discussion partner made
| was actually in stark contrast to your point in the
| result they were arguing for.
|
| You ended with:
|
| > Asking for no photos is like participating in a big
| sports event as an athlete and demanding nobody takes
| photos.
|
| A private, invite only, wedding isn't comparable to a
| sports event that you described. Because this is by
| definition public. Why? Because anyone can buy a ticket
| to that event. That makes it open to the public. Yes, you
| need a ticket to enter. But it's not invite only.
|
| Imagine a big baseball/football/soccer event. The stadium
| is packed. Anybody can film to their liking. This is the
| public part. Now imagine the owners box way at the top.
| Not one of these humans down in the regular seats will be
| able to get up there. It's invite only. That makes it
| private. Even if there are many people in that box.
|
| But the owner (or in case of the wedding the couple
| getting married) chose who Would be allowed to partake in
| that event. And so, they also get to make the rules.
|
| If you, with your attitude would be at a private event I
| was hosting, you wouldn't be there long. Because you
| still need to learn the difference between public (in
| theory anybody can attend and the host doesn't get to
| choose) and private (only the host chooses who can
| attend).
| taylorius wrote:
| English lacks the word to differentiate between "public"
| as "no secret, out in the open" and "public" as in "free
| for all and gratis".
|
| Try using a pair of words. Publicly announced vs publicly
| accessible.
| ThrownOffGame wrote:
| Weddings held in churches have been public with nobody
| turned away at the door. Perhaps you are thinking of
| receptions, where invitations are checked, and
| accountants are eyeing the attendees accordingly.
|
| An impending wedding is usually one of the most
| publicized events in any city. The banns must be
| published, typically in a special section of the
| newspaper. In order to give notice for anyone who may
| object or know about a prior bond. Also any hint of
| duress or urgency that may impede free consent. The banns
| are the actual execution of the ceremonial "callout" you
| see in films.
|
| The witnesses of a wedding are not optional. The
| witnesses serve as representatives of the general public.
| Typically a clandestine wedding would be invalid without
| witnesses to verify and vouch for the identity, presence,
| and consent of bride and groom.
|
| Taking photos for verification is sort of after-the-fact,
| and it would be most unfortunate for the banns to miss
| the mark until after the ceremony, or the consummation.
|
| But only crazy people would consider a wedding ceremony
| "private" or "closed to the public" other than "renting
| an officiant" and flying off to a Caribbean elopement
| that only your billionaire girlboss bridesmaids can
| afford.
| GJim wrote:
| > 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.
| ThrownOffGame wrote:
| 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?
| lostlogin wrote:
| It's a 326 to 60,000,000 chance they are referring to
| NSW.
| ThrownOffGame wrote:
| Do Englishmen frequently refer to "Blighty" in ordinary
| conversation?
|
| I refer to my homeland as "The States" out of courtesy to
| those from Canada, UK, Australia, but I had to rack my
| brains, and Wikipedia, about "Blighty" because it seems
| archaic, stilted, and arcane in a tech forum.
|
| I've heard England called a lot of things by its
| citizens, but I was under the impression that "Ol'
| Blighty" died out with Queen Victoria.
| knorker wrote:
| 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!".
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| > And I am at a loss to imagine security guards checking
| invitations at a church door and giving heave-ho to the
| unworthy.
|
| Especially with churches in most cases nobody will be
| shown the door especially as in (Christian) church
| tradition the wedding is before God and the community,
| which traditionally is the village. Nonetheless many
| cultures will see it as somewhat private. Especially the
| reception or a non-church ceremony.
| gms7777 wrote:
| In the US this is generally true as well. It's not that
| there will be security at the door checking invitations,
| but it's be very rude to show up to a wedding ceremony
| you weren't invited to.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| I think he was talking about weddings from historical
| perspective. Like, everyone needs to know the couple are
| married (taken) and through this public knowledge the
| marriage is confirmed.
| patmcc wrote:
| Historically at least, it's not that weddings are in
| public places, but that they're inherently a performance
| for the community. Like the reason for having a wedding
| is to make a commitment publicly in front of your friends
| and family. That doesn't mean it needs to be open to all
| who want to wander in, but it's strange to think of it as
| a _secret_ event.
|
| I feel like it's pretty strange (and mildly rude) to
| insist no one take/post photos of a wedding, and also
| _very_ rude to take /post photos when asked not to.
| triceratops wrote:
| > Asking guests to not take photos
|
| I think they asked guests not to _post_ photos of the
| couple.
| bluecheese452 wrote:
| This is one of the weirdest takes I have ever heard.
| hamdingers wrote:
| > A wedding is one of the most fundamentally public
| events that have ever existed.
|
| Important context since it seems you have never been to a
| wedding: they are almost all invite-only.
| hahn-kev wrote:
| So if you have a quiet and private ceremony is it ok to
| ask people who come to that not to take pictures?
| seb1204 wrote:
| Yes, why not?
| basisword wrote:
| >> Asking guests to not take photos is such a faux pass
| that the couple has destroyed their reputation
| completely.
|
| The day is not about you. Just like people are free to
| exclude children from weddings, if they ask you not to
| take photos and you take umbrage at that, you need to
| take a hard look at yourself. It's. Not. About. You.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Almost every couple manage to arrange their wedding
| without any unusual rules and demands. So most people
| seem to have taken your advice at heart. My advice to you
| is trying to make your argument without tired and boring
| insults such as "take a hard look at yourself". People
| have different opinions and perspectives, you can only
| accept that.
|
| I've never made any strange rules for guests when I host,
| and I've politely declined the very rare cases when I've
| received such an invite. Because I know it's not about
| me.
| basisword wrote:
| You're free to dislike the request of the couple. I have
| no argument with that. People can be over the top. But I
| can't imagine skipping the wedding of someone I care
| about because I don't want to adhere to a simple request
| like not taking photos.
| patmcc wrote:
| I think this is a strange and very modern conception of
| weddings. Weddings are not just about the bride and
| groom; they're about the bride and groom and the
| community of their friends and family. That third part is
| a key component! It's why we invite people to weddings,
| so they can witness and help the couple in making and
| keeping the commitment of marriage.
| basisword wrote:
| True, of course, but they're the ones spending a fortune
| on it. Not only so they can have a memorable day but so
| their guests enjoy it too. Seems fair that if they ask
| you to do something really really easy like not take
| photos, you do that.
| blitzar wrote:
| Anyone breaking the rules would be banned from my next
| wedding.
| patmcc wrote:
| Yes, that's an asshole move.
|
| I think it's also pretty weird to ask people not to take
| photos though.
|
| edit: "no photos during the ceremony" is different than "no
| photos the entire event", obviously
| seb1204 wrote:
| I think the request was to not post them to social media.
| physicsguy wrote:
| This gets asked at basically every wedding I've been to in
| the UK i.e. there is a professional photographer, please
| don't take photos of the bride and groom in the church and it
| still gets ignored. At my own wedding, one of the guests (not
| even someone invited to the whole day, just a neighbour of my
| wife's parents who knew her growing up) is leaning out of the
| aisle with their phone taking photos ruining a load of
| photos.
|
| It's incredibly frustrating. I also think it's really strange
| that when something happens in public, the default isn't to
| look to see if the person isn't OK anymore, it's to pull out
| a camera phone and start filming.
| GJim wrote:
| > please don't take photos of the bride and groom in the
| church and it still gets ignored
|
| Counterpoint
|
| I've never known such requests be ignored here in Blighty.
| Ditto requests not to upload photos to social media.
| Kye wrote:
| I've seen posts from wedding photographers who would pass
| around cheap/older cameras to guests. This lets people
| scratch the shutterbug itch while avoiding all the problems
| that come with a room full of people trying to get a shot.
| gms7777 wrote:
| The thing I've seen at a few weddings recently is that
| right after the processional, they have a period of like 30
| seconds where they allow everyone to take a picture of the
| couple, then phones away for the rest of the ceremony. I'm
| sure it's not 100% effective, but it does seem to scratch
| the itch for most people. I think also by calling such
| explicit attention to the rule at the beginning of the
| ceremony, it makes it seem ever more rude to violate it
| later.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| Unrelated to this post but what does it mean when a person
| isn't invited to the whole day?
| gms7777 wrote:
| I've been to weddings that had an "open" ceremony and a
| closed reception. This has generally been at a church,
| where the wedding itself is announced to the whole church
| community, but then the reception is a more limited
| number of family and friends.
|
| More commonly though, I've been to weddings where they
| had a small private ceremony (just the couple, officiant,
| and a handful of family), and then a large reception for
| everyone in the evening.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| They're not invited to the ceremony & wedding breakfast
| (which often isn't actually breakfast), just the evening
| reception. Unlike US weddings, the evening event is
| generally not the most expensive part of the affair.
| physicsguy wrote:
| 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.
| sarchertech wrote:
| I noticed you said "the whole day" I went a wedding once
| where the bride was from the UK. They said it was a
| "British style" wedding. It was almost exactly like an
| American wedding except that everything lasted twice as
| long (cocktail hour was 2 hours etc...).
|
| I could never find out if this was a common thing in the UK
| or not.
| TRiG_Ireland wrote:
| I believe that it's uncommon in the USA to invite people
| to part of a wedding, but it's common in the UK. "Not
| someone invited to the whole day" implies a second-tier
| guest, who's been invited to the ceremony and the after-
| party, but not to the meal.
|
| The ceremony is technically open to the public in any
| case, usually.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| I attended my first GenZ wedding a couple of months ago and
| they (someone on behalf of the couple) announced this
| request. It applied specifically to the wedding itself, not
| the post-wedding party (at the same venue).
|
| Certainly the first time it had ever come up, but it made
| sense to me. If you're invited to someone's wedding, it's
| only natural to respect their wishes.
|
| Not everything needs to be documented online!
| theyknowitsxmas wrote:
| Good luck with that. People like the spectacle, do it in
| court with a casual dinner, nobody takes pictures.
| sdoering wrote:
| Anyone finding it rude would find themselves not only on the
| "formerly invited and definitely not welcome" list. But also
| on the "good riddance, it was nice having known you once"
| list.
|
| People with such little respect for boundaries are just not
| welcome in my life.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| That person might be close family, and many folks aren't as
| ready to go full no-contact with their mother's sister or
| whomever it might be.
| abe94 wrote:
| I went to a middle eastern wedding recently and they gave
| everyone these phone pouches to keep their phones in that
| were locked for the event's duration.
|
| Honestly made the whole event better
| latexr wrote:
| > I also find video a bit invasive of privacy in a way that
| photos aren't.
|
| I'd argue photos can be _more_ invasive. If someone makes a 10
| minute video and you're somewhere in the background for 5
| seconds, no one may ever notice. Furthermore, with compression
| artefacts for motion you may become difficult to recognise.
|
| But if you're in a photo, people will be looking at it for
| longer and are thus most likely to notice you and possibly zoom
| in on you with all the quality the static sensor provides.
|
| Furthermore, photographs have greater potential to create false
| narratives. A snapshot taken at the wrong millisecond can
| easily make you look like a creep or weirdo when a video
| would've made it clear you were just turning your head or
| starting a yawn.
| filoeleven wrote:
| > A snapshot taken at the wrong millisecond can easily make
| you look like a creep or weirdo when a video would've made it
| clear you were just turning your head or starting a yawn.
|
| Taking a screenshot from a video for exactly this reason is
| incredibly common. Look at any photograph accompanying a
| political story about a figure from "the other party".
|
| See for example this Reddit post about the "triggered" meme
| origin: > Ironically, if you ever get a chance to see the
| video of this incident, this woman and the man she's speaking
| with are actually having a polite discussion. But... She has
| very animated facial expressions and the photographer just
| happened to catch this frame at an inopportune moment.
|
| So it seems to me that since a video is simply thousands of
| photographs with a soundtrack, video is strictly more
| invasive than photography.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/adyt1d/comment/hvp04.
| ..
| latexr wrote:
| It is precisely because the video exists that you have the
| opportunity to correct the misconception, which is exactly
| what happened with the discussion in your example. Had it
| been a photograph, that context would have been lost and no
| one could refute it.
|
| The compression artefacts help there, because they make it
| very clear this was taken from a video, meaning one should
| look up the source because it probably exists.
|
| That is a perfect example of how a photograph could be
| worse than a video.
| agedclock wrote:
| 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.
| card_zero wrote:
| 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 who no longer care, that would suck.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Watch any home VHS video from the 80s. Half the people the
| person holding the camera points it at say "stop filming me"
|
| There's just always been people uncomfortable with it.
| agedclock wrote:
| > Watch any home VHS video from the 80s. Half the people
| the person holding the camera points it at say "stop
| filming me"
|
| I suspect a lot of that is more to do with them being
| worried about their how they look on the film than actually
| being on the film itself.
|
| > There's just always been people uncomfortable with it.
|
| Of course there are going to be people uncomfortable with
| it. I am. The issue is that it isn't ever going to go
| backwards and being video recorded in public by amateurs
| has been around for almost 40 years. The ship has sailed a
| long time ago.
| mminer237 wrote:
| 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.
| Telaneo wrote:
| Those photos would have been taken with the understanding
| that they woupd have ended up in Grandma's album, maybe
| flipped through a few times, but never spread far and wide.
| The stakes change quite a lot if those photos can be
| published.
| lenors wrote:
| I'm from Gen Z and the idea of being filmed and published
| online without my consent sounds like a nightmare. It is my
| belief that it's an invasion of privacy (even in a public
| space) and questionable from a (cyber)security perspective. In
| France we got the Droit a l'image (Right to the image) which
| makes it illegal to post images or videos of people online
| without their consent, so that may be why that feels very
| strange to me.
| ghaff wrote:
| And yet it happens thousands (or more) times a day. Even in
| the US there is the idea of publicity rights--I can't use an
| easily identifiable photo of you in an ad or other marketing
| materials. But posting on Flickr or wherever where someone
| hasn't shoved a camera in your face but you're easily
| identifiable?
|
| Happens all the time.
| hdgvhicv wrote:
| Aside from the Eiffel Tower what actually benefits from that
| right?
|
| In many ways an unenforced right is worse than no right at
| all.
| ghaff wrote:
| The Eiffel Tower situation is a somewhat complicated
| matter. You can (of course) publish a photo of the tower on
| your social media account. But the nighttime illumination
| is apparently copyrighted and it's not clear to me if the
| prohibition about publishing extends beyond commercial
| purposes anyway.
|
| I agree with your broader point. Recognizable people get
| their photos published on social media every second of
| every day and, while someone can probably find an outlier
| example where someone got prosecuted for doing so, it's
| incredibly rare at the least--even in countries where it's
| technically a violation of some law.
| sdoering wrote:
| In German, we also have a "Right to the image". It is
| based on our constitutional rights.
|
| But, if you are a public figure, as in you are a media
| person, a celebrity or politician. As in you are actually
| searching for publicity, the situation changes. Here the
| beauty of shades of grey and work for lawyers begins.
|
| Because while you have lost the clear cut black or white,
| there are still things that will get the person
| publishing into trouble.
|
| When I started my career in online journalism this was a
| very long discussed topic while we had our course at the
| Academy for Journalism in Hamburg.
|
| But for ordinary people, the right to your image is a
| quite strong protection.
| Theodores wrote:
| France - where the 'Society of the Spectacle' was written by
| Guy Debord in the 1960s, where he predicted late stage
| capitalism as being mediated by images, so rather than
| reality, human existence and relationships between people are
| 'mediated by images'.
|
| This is at the heart of what is going on. Society of the
| Spectacle is not an easy read, but it most definitely is
| pertinent to what is going on. Instagram is the final boss!
| weinzierl wrote:
| It is primarily a cultural one. You won't find many countries
| with the _" well, if you don't want to be in photos published
| online, don't be in public spaces"_ opinion outside the anglo-
| saxon world.
|
| The UK is a special place because culturally it belongs to the
| anglo-saxon sphere but legally it inherited the strict EU
| personality rights.
| OJFord wrote:
| > The UK is a special place because culturally it belongs to
| the anglo-saxon sphere
|
| I hear US culture is fairly dominant in the USA, too?
| detaro wrote:
| you should read the entire sentence before replying
| OJFord wrote:
| I did, have again, and still have no idea what you mean.
| detaro wrote:
| It's special because both parts apply to the UK, not just
| the one you quoted.
| OJFord wrote:
| And I said nothing to the contrary? I just thought it was
| funny to describe the UK as 'part of the Anglo-Saxon
| sphere', like Rome is 'among the cities with Roman
| influence'.
| kgwgk wrote:
| >> The platypus is a special animal because it lays eggs
| but nurses its young with milk.
|
| > I hear chickens lay eggs, too?
| OJFord wrote:
| No. I just thought it was amusing/redundant to describe
| the UK as among the Anglo-Saxon sphere; your mock example
| is irrelevant - the point of mine was that 'US culture
| dominates the USA' is obvious, I wasn't just... I don't
| even understand what you think I was doing, just stating
| some random other fact?
| ____mr____ wrote:
| I don't even understand how photos are less invasive of
| privacy. I try not to be too weird about it, but overall I
| dislike getting photos taken of me. Why should I put up with
| that if I want to participate in a hobby?
| Applejinx wrote:
| I'm a youtuber to support my programming project, and I see
| many people in my situation being a lot more shy about doing
| that. It's a lot of work to do it properly and takes dedicated
| attention to not have your parasocial community turn sour or
| vicious on you: it's no joke.
|
| I wonder how much of this is people expecting that ANY media
| presence will throw them into the troubles people experience
| when they have all the media presence. I know if I blow up big
| enough (not much of a threat right now) that someone will come
| to hurt me, no matter how I am. That's not about me, it's about
| statistics. If I blew up that big I could probably afford
| security...
|
| I think some people assume you'll be confronted with that sort
| of problem right away just by appearing on youtube etc. Sure
| you will... eventually. Or if you're staggeringly unlucky.
| ghaff wrote:
| From a professional perspective, I never worried much and I'm
| pretty sure it helped me. But I totally understand if there
| were/are people who are very concerned about putting
| themselves "out there" when there is at least a remote
| possibility of some offhand remark or paragraph costing them
| their job.
| jmuguy wrote:
| I'm also old enough to remember not having to worry about this
| and what irritates me more is - I don't want to be part of
| someone else's "content".
| eloisant wrote:
| It is very much cultural. In the 2000's I moved from Japan
| where they're very strict about public filming/taking pictures
| (it's something you don't do, period) to the US where people
| were uploading photos to Flickr and tagging people there.
| Completely different worlds, and we're not even talking about
| Gen Z because none of them were old enough to be even
| teenagers.
| ghaff wrote:
| That seems weird to me. I remember in the pre-smartphone days
| when Japanese were the nationality whose tourists were
| snapping pictures everywhere and group photos in business
| settings was the norm when Americans at least were sort of
| thinking weird but whatever.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I think there is an _age range_ where all this "posting" has
| been normalized, but outside of that generation it's not
| appreciated. I'm old enough that this kind of shit is still
| taboo to me, and I know my young kid and her friends are all
| deeply aware of who's being photographed, and what to share
| online and what not to. All the kids seem to deliberately
| distinguish between photo/video of objects and of people around
| them, when they go to post things. They're definitely aware and
| careful. It's this middle age range of maybe 25-45 year olds
| (?) where a sizable number of people are just careless or even
| accept casual posting of other people's photos and video.
| lynx97 wrote:
| My theory is that those "you just have to accept it" people are
| unwilling or unable to confront their own wrongdoing. Out of
| principle, and also triggered by the recent "AI uses all data
| available" situation I've tried to voice my disagreement when
| someone was talking a foto of me. The reactions were all around
| the same: Nobody was willing to just say "Sorry, of course
| thats your choice". _everyone_ had some lame excuse or was
| trying to pressure me socially. "But my brother is deaf and
| just wanted to show it to his friends". As if I care if someone
| has a disability or not, especially since I am blind myself.
|
| To sum it up, in my experience, people are just not willing to
| respect your boundaries if you make them aware they overstepped
| yours. They will always go for some excuse, instead of just
| accepting they erred.
| tiahura wrote:
| I think the generational fracture may cut the other way. My
| impression, consistent with the polls, is that the younger
| generations are much more willing to embrace authoritarianism
| when it advances their personal values and interests. They
| think that the threat of violence from the state to prevent
| others from forming an opinion of them based on information
| they don't control is perfectly acceptable. Laissez-faire is
| passe.
| suyash wrote:
| 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.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| In the event of litigation (in court or in the public
| sphere), one would be at a disadvantage if they don't have
| video of their side.
|
| Like how you should have a dash cam for your side in a
| vehicle collision. Although, maybe sufficiently convincing
| fake videos will make it a moot point in the future.
| scotty79 wrote:
| I think it'll just desensitize people. Long time ago a kiss
| on a movie theatre screen was enough to make people protest
| and leave in indignation. Now everybody is few taps away from
| hardcore porn all the time and not many people care.
| brudgers wrote:
| _you risk becoming a side character in someone elses '
| parasocial relationship_
|
| Your perception of this as a risk probably suggests cultural
| and/or generational differences.
|
| But for the actual circumstances of the fine article's author,
| video is a norm of the community the author seeks to join.
| Within the community, video is an established practice and
| making a video rig signifies a higher degree of commitment to
| the community.
|
| Not accepting the use of video, is at least a partial rejection
| of the community values. Accepting video is a tradeoff for
| participating in community practices. The _practical_
| alternative is usually to find or build an alternative
| community. [0]
|
| To put it another way, joining the bird watching community
| means keeping lists. Yes, of course you can just watch birds
| for your personal pleasure, but documentation is a core
| community activity.
|
| [0] sure logically it is possible to change a community, but
| marginal members (e.g. new, casual, low status) are rarely in
| position to overturn established practice and run the risk of
| being set up for the agendas of established members.
| brailsafe wrote:
| > To put it another way, joining the bird watching community
| means keeping lists. Yes, of course you can just watch birds
| for your personal pleasure, but documentation is a core
| community activity.
|
| How do you define community? Seems like a bit rigid of a
| implied requirement.
|
| The whole idea of conflating community and publicity or some
| documentation requirement seems a bit silly to me, and it's
| definitely not rare, but an individual is perfectly within
| their right to go about engagement in their hobby with other
| people who have similar interests on whichever terms they
| like, which seems like community to me, as long as some form
| of commonly understood communication is present.
|
| Likewise the people who do want to establish certain
| requirements, gates if you will, have the right to do so, but
| not as a whole. Country clubs don't and shouldn't have
| exclusive domain over golf, and I don't give the slightest
| fuck about recording myself at the bouldering gym or
| skateboarding, but that shouldn't prevent me from being part
| of either culture or community unless a specific club within
| those forms around publication.
|
| I'd concede that it's possible that a community could exist
| in such a way that the act of documenting is the exclusive
| basis for which people are able to communicate at all, in
| which case perhaps that defines the boundary, but again it
| seems like it would be rare for that to be so pervasive as to
| encapsulate the entirety of a hobby.
| brudgers wrote:
| The birdwatching community is similar to a collecting
| community insofar as seeing a bird is like having it in
| your collection and going out to birdwatch is like hunting
| items to add to your collection.
|
| Lists and records fill the role a physical collection plays
| in collecting hobbies.
|
| _The whole idea of conflating community and publicity or
| some documentation requirement seems a bit silly to me_
|
| Usually that simply means a community is not for you and
| the birdwatching hobby is not for me either...though I have
| driven a few hundred miles out of my way to see the
| California Condors at Vermillion Cliffs (I didn't write it
| down).
|
| On the other hand, not-for-me just means not for me to me.
| I can see why people do it and it is pleasant to ask them
| what they are looking at and congratulate them if they tell
| me it's a lifer...
|
| Anyway, birds fascinate me and I am blessed to live along
| the Pacific Flyway in a location with abundant wildlife and
| natural areas outside my door (it's why I sometimes chat
| with birders). But it only took me one look at what the
| birdwatching community values to know it was not for me
| (same as most religions, political movements, ideologies,
| etc.).
| brailsafe wrote:
| That all sounds fantastic, I'm sure I'd find that pretty
| engaging and I enjoy making small collections of hobbyist
| interests and going on adventures in-pursuit of niche
| experiences as well.
|
| I wasn't so much curious about the mechanics of the
| hobby, although it is interesting, rather what defines it
| as a "community". Like what qualifies or doesn't qualify
| as being in or out of the "community"? If I make a list
| of birds I've seen, and don't share it with anyone, am in
| a community? If I share a photo on Instagram and mention
| it in passing to my close friend, am I in a community
| then? Do I need to be on some common platform,
| communicating at all about other bird lists? My
| grandfather kind of has a similar hobby with planes, but
| I'm sure he doesn't think of himself as part of a global
| community of plane enthusiasts, yet his local wood
| carving community is a place he goes and talks to people
| he knows by name and has spent years around, evidently a
| community with the requirement that you're into wood
| carving
| al_borland wrote:
| 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.
| lynx97 wrote:
| I am assuming you have no good alternatives regarding your
| gym? Because if you feel uncomfortable with the behaviour of
| the owners, you should really vote with your wallet.
| al_borland wrote:
| I don't go there anymore. The owner has been texting me on
| and off to try and get me to go back. I've been looking for
| other options, but am having trouble finding one that looks
| decent for me.
|
| It's a bit of a paradox. When I'm looking for a gym, I find
| pictures incredibly helpful, but I don't want them taken of
| me as a member there.
| detaro wrote:
| Most gyms it shouldn't be that hard to take useful
| pictures without people in them though? Do pictures of
| classes add anything?
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > 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.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Better yet, offer a free class to people who don't mind
| being photographed (of whom there are many). 'Being part
| of a company's marketing' isn't something that should be
| included in the price of a product or service.
| worik wrote:
| Better still, pay people for the use of their image in
| advertising
|
| Always
| collingreen wrote:
| Right? Somehow we've let corporations (which arent even a
| real life thing! They are just groups of people!) be
| entitled to huge swaths of our lives. You want to use my
| image for your marketing because you don't want to pay
| models? Gtfo of here! What an insane thing to do to
| customers.
| saalweachter wrote:
| I feel like if you announced your "picture day", you'd
| also get a subset of the gym members who wanted to show
| up that day looking their best. (And a subset of jokers
| who want to see if they can sneak their way into the
| marketing material so that there's a picture of someone
| exercising in a tuxedo or whatever if you look closely
| enough.)
| landl0rd wrote:
| Classes are a different story, but at least for the legion of
| would-be gymfluencers that show up in gyms frequented by us
| zoomers, there's an easy solution: tell them to please not
| film you. If they don't comply, mess up their video.
| Deliberately walk across the camera. Deliberately get in the
| way. Take the machine against which they're resting a cell
| phone and start using it. Make funny faces. Whatever.
|
| More people should understand you are no more morally
| obligated to behave sociably toward those exhibiting
| antisocial behavior than you are to stay your hand from a man
| who hits you.
|
| Then there are those who film in the locker rooms which
| arguably should be reason to ban them from said gyms.
|
| Imo these types should stick to "influencer gyms". They
| exist. Alphaland in Texas is a great example; a friend of
| mine frequented it as she started her bodybuilding page.
| Worked great for her. Just stay the hell out of the "normal
| people" gyms.
| Loughla wrote:
| The problem with acting antisocial during someone else's
| filming is that they are then free to blow you up with
| whatever lies they feel like, just because they're angry.
| People get their lives ruined by doing that.
|
| That's where my anxiety comes in when I see people filming.
| I am MASSIVELY aware of my face, body, and genuinely
| everything about myself when I run into that, because I do
| not want to be tried in the court of public opinion.
| nomercy400 wrote:
| Private site. The event site could hold events where cameras are
| forbidden. There are other examples like spas or swimming pools
| where cameras are forbidden.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I think conversation gets more telling if you include some more
| protected groups like children. And then more slightly more
| intimate places, like say pools or beaches and expand it to
| proper zoom and telephoto lenses.
|
| Is there still in those case no expectation of privacy? Where
| exactly is the line? Maybe changing rooms and toilets are not
| public places anymore... But is the line really that clear?
| elric wrote:
| I encounter people taking pictures, making video calls, and
| recording insta/tiktok/whatever videos in the gym changing room
| all the god damned time. I keep telling people to stop, but not
| once has anyone responded with "oh sorry". A belligerent "why?"
| is the most polite response I've received.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > I occasionally see people saying "well, if you don't want to be
| in photos published online, don't be in public spaces".
|
| > This is nonsense, for a number of reasons. Clearly, one should
| be able to exist in society, including going outside one's own
| home, without needing to accept this kind of thing.
|
| In the US the legal doctrine is no privacy at all in public
| spaces (a lot more expansive than that actually), that's probably
| where those comments come from.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| There are plenty of US states with two-party consent for
| recording (audio, mostly, but in some cases video as well)
| octo888 wrote:
| Ok but it's a UK domain talking about an activity in the UK
| trollbridge wrote:
| I'm not nearly as strict: I just prefer that pictures of my kids
| not be uploaded to social media (or cloud photo hosting services,
| etc.)
|
| Regardless of that, some strangers think it's fine to take
| pictures of them in public... sometimes they ask first, sometimes
| they don't.
| mcv wrote:
| In Netherland schools have to ask for permission to use photos
| of your children on social media or elsewhere. I have no idea
| if the same holds true for non-schools.
| simon_void wrote:
| this is exactly about what is legal or not. If I remember
| correctly in Germany there's a distinction about people being the
| focus of a photograph or people in the background. You can e.g.
| publish a picture of a public place without asking everybody on
| that place for their consent. Another corner case would be
| filming police brutality. What if the police officers in question
| wouldn't like to be photographed being brutal!? Local laws do
| apply.
| andersa wrote:
| This law badly needs to be updated to account for the fact that
| photo/video resolutions have massively increased since it was
| written, and "not the focus of a picture" is no longer enough
| to prevent you from being identified/tracked in the picture,
| which was the original intent.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Have you seen the cameras on cell phones compared to the
| cameras of yesterday? Resolutions are up but faked through
| software. A 640 picture from 2004 can be enlarged with
| clearer detail compared to a 2000px of today always looking
| sharp but never truly capturing a clear picture.
| balderdash wrote:
| I think the laws around this are fairly antiquated. People should
| clearly have the right to photograph in public, however, I
| strongly believe that should someone take someone else's
| photograph they shouldn't need their consent to post the photo
| publicly or monetize it in anyway. Obviously, there should be
| some limited car outs like public servants in the commission of
| their duties, legitimate news organizations, use in court etc.
|
| Edit: I don't think k posting a photo on a private social media
| profile / group chat would count as public, but rather anything
| the general public has access to.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| The laws in Switzerland are actually what you're describing.
| sandblast wrote:
| In the whole EU, I think.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| No, doesn't work like that in plenty of places in the EU,
| and additionally Switzerland is not in the EU.
| sandblast wrote:
| I don't think I implied it was, but would you mind
| sharing examples?
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Czechia etc etc.
| sandblast wrote:
| What exactly doesn't work like that in the countries you
| mentioned?
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Why did you say "in the whole EU, I think?" It seemed to
| imply you grasped the context of the conversation
| already, but now the thread has taken what feels like a
| bizarre turn in a recursive direction.
| sandblast wrote:
| You claim that it is not the case, so I would like you to
| point out which of these aspects is different in one of
| these countries. Do you claim it's not allowed to
| photograph others in public without their explicit
| consent in Czech Republic, for example?
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| No, read back on the thread. The person imagined a kind
| of law that limited public photography except for cases
| of preventing crime etc. I said it works like that in
| Switzerland. You said also in the rest of the EU, and I'm
| pointing out it does not work that way in the rest of the
| EU, because countries like Czechia are far more lax about
| public photography than Switzerland or even The
| Netherlands.
| sandblast wrote:
| > People should clearly have the right to photograph in
| public
|
| > should someone take someone else's photograph they
| should need their consent to post the photo publicly
|
| > I don't think posting a photo on a private social media
| profile / group chat would count as public
|
| That all sounds pretty similar to what I know from EU
| countries. Of course, there are also exceptions like
| photographing groups of people etc., but I don't think
| that goes the spirit of the balderdash's concept.
| sandblast wrote:
| I think you meant "they should need their consent to post",
| right?
| balderdash wrote:
| Yes I did
| setterle wrote:
| I play soccer. There are ways to bring people down a peg if they
| do anything flashy, disrespectful, etc. We're not breaking legs
| of course, but you'll feel it the next morning if you've been a
| douchebag to your opponent.
|
| In this case, _you have a gun_. Surely you can find a way to ruin
| this guy 's day. He won't have much interesting footage if the
| other team agrees to end his shit as soon as the game starts like
| you would the flashy winger with fluorescent boots trying rainbow
| flicks.
| ionwake wrote:
| I'm not sure if anyone has missed the delicious irony that
| airsoft is one of the rare sports where faces and thus identity
| is covered , pretty much the whole time. I don't think I've ever
| even seen a human face or anything identifiable in ANY airsoft
| video I've ever seen.
|
| So while the author makes an interesting point about surveillance
| I can't tell if he's being ironic on purpose.
| parsimo2010 wrote:
| I don't know about the UK, but in the USA the idea of "if you
| don't want to be in photos published online, don't be in public
| spaces" is pretty regularly upheld in courts. You don't have an
| expectation of privacy in a public space.
|
| You might have some recourse if another person's video singles
| you out, but just being one of the several people in an airsoft
| video, where your face is partially obscured anyway, isn't much
| of a legal standing.
| cs02rm0 wrote:
| > You don't have an expectation of privacy in a public space.
|
| Pretty similar in the UK.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Yea, and in this case unless the property owner says no filming
| said person would have no legs to stand on.
|
| In most 'fun' events like this with random members of the
| public said venue has a monetary interest in ensuring people
| can film in the vast majority of the cases. People go there to
| have fun, and sharing videos of said fun is but one more way to
| ensure they get future customers.
| rs186 wrote:
| > well, if you don't want to be in photos published online, don't
| be in public spaces
|
| That's the correct answer. End of the story.
|
| It is our consensus of what "public space" means and one can do
| with it (which varies depending on where you are) that forms a
| lot of our social norms and society. It is why hang drying
| clothes is acceptable/normal in many parts of the world but not
| in the US. It is why people are expected to wear at least some
| clothes. It is why you can take photos of random people,
| including kids, without their/their parents' consent in the US in
| public space.
|
| If you think you are so special to never show up in a photo,
| don't be in the public in the first, or wear a mask, a hat plus
| sunglasses or something else. Celebrities have been doing this
| for forever.
| op00to wrote:
| Huh? Hanging clothes is absolutely accepted in the US. I have a
| clothesline.
| alex77456 wrote:
| > In any case, here, the issue is somewhat different, since it
| is a private site, where people engage in private activity (a
| hobby)
| sigwinch wrote:
| Not the end of the story. Photographing where people do not
| expect strong assurances of privacy is complex to enforce. Try
| photographing inside a stadium, at the Olympics, etc. Others
| around you might be photographing, but security might ask you
| to stop or leave.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Strong disagree.
|
| The right to take photos of random people without consent in
| public spaces, is NOT the same as the right to publish those
| photos online for the world to see and as a theoretically
| permanent discoverable archive.
| rs186 wrote:
| You must be extraordinarily naive to think that people take
| photos in public places without ever posting them online, by
| default.
|
| And let me know one single instance where someone gets sued
| for posting a photo of someone appearing in public space in
| the US.
| phillipharris wrote:
| This isn't a general solution, but since it's Airsoft can't you
| just wear a helmet that covers your whole head?
| trenchpilgrim wrote:
| ^ you should be wearing a mouthguard and goggles anyway, add a
| skate helmet and your head is probably not visible
| mcv wrote:
| I think this is something you need to address with the owner or
| organizer of the event. If they say you can film, you can. If
| they say you can't, you can't. I imagine there might be
| sufficient demand for airsoft fights where video is not allowed.
| Simulacra wrote:
| And there might be events to find that explicitly state no
| filming.
| sebstefan wrote:
| >I could, I suppose, ask each person that I see with a camera
| "would you mind not including me in anything you upload,
| please?". And, since everyone with whom I've spoken at games, so
| far anyway, has been perfectly pleasant and friendly
|
| I must be living in a parallel universe of airsoft players. I
| can't possibly imagine anyone in that space changing their ways
| because somebody kindly asked them to
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| It's a legally grey area. In most countries, you can't really
| stop people from shooting video and photos in public spaces. But
| you can do something about publishing the material. Most stock
| photography websites and similar websites will insist on
| permission from identifiable individuals in photos or videos for
| this reason. And a lot of conferences or fairs will give notice
| of the fact that there will be photos and videos taken at such
| events (thus clearly marking them as public events). I've seen
| that here in Germany at least.
|
| And this is a sensitive topic here. Some people here get upset if
| you point a camera at them and will aggressively demand that you
| delete their photo. I've seen that happen a few times (not to
| me). Some people really get pissed off over this here and they
| tend to known their rights. So good luck arguing otherwise.
|
| If you look at the rules here, they are quite sensible. You can't
| just publish photos or videos with recognizable people in them
| unless it's clearly a public event (like a demonstration,
| concert, etc.). Taking the photos is mostly OK (up to a point).
| And there's an exemption for private photos. But you can't just
| publish photos with people recognizably in them unless falls
| under the narrow set of exceptions to that rule.
|
| Photos of people actually count as personally identifiable
| information under GDPR. So, people can object to that being
| stored by companies, ask for it to be removed, and companies need
| valid reasons for storing such photos.
|
| In this case, the person is in the UK where people simply have
| less protections against this. Which is something the tabloid
| press there tends to abuse by trying to get photos of famous
| people in private / embarrassing situations by all means
| possible. That would be a lot less legal in Germany and expose
| you to lawsuits if you were to do that. The German tabloid press
| has a rich history of that happening.
| mothballed wrote:
| In the US in most states it's illegal to monetize the image of
| children [without consent] unless it's just incidental to the
| film.
|
| I'd imagine if 17 year olds were allowed you could make it
| legally dicy enough for someone that they'd not want to do it,
| if they were profiting off of it.
| zokier wrote:
| 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_...
| frantathefranta wrote:
| 1. The author of the article is in the UK
|
| 2. Recording people without their consent still happens in lot
| of other countries other than the US. I bet I'm in tons of
| YouTube videos showing skiing in the Alps.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Because the US has other laws that make the kind of laws you're
| talking about very difficult. You have to look at the laws
| together as a part of a system and not a one off set of
| actions.
|
| In addition laws in the US tend to protect the rich very well
| and get wholesale ignored for the poor. That is Jeffrey Bezos
| will punish you with the full extent of the law for taking a
| video of him beating a baby fur seal to death with a bat, while
| star-wars kid will be begging for venmo donations in order to
| get thousands of copies of video taken down while law
| enforcement ignores the situation.
| deepsun wrote:
| 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.
| ghaff wrote:
| Some conferences I've attended provide stickers to put on
| your badge and if you don't want to be photographed/published
| the conference organizers may pay attention with respect to
| their publicity photos. Of course, others snapping pics with
| their cell phones may not. (And, in Germany as well as other
| countries, I've never seen explicit warnings about not
| publishing photos of people at a conference without
| permission.).
|
| 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.
| lomase wrote:
| In my country is like this, or was, I have not worked in that
| space for a long time.
|
| An individual can record you on the street without problems.
|
| A crew can't record you on the street for anything that will
| be aired on tv/cinema without your signing that you give your
| permision.
|
| A Youtuber can record you on the street without problems.
| Vrondi wrote:
| Well, the author in the article is in the US, posting about
| behavior they experience in the US, so it really isn't that
| surprising.
| detaro wrote:
| ah, .co.uk, the TLD long favored by lawyers blogging in the
| US, indeed.
| Simulacra wrote:
| I agree with the author, and it Reminds me of people who video at
| the gym. I think it goes to a deeper issue in our society: people
| love taking video of other people, and then put them on the
| internet, which always runs the risk of being turned into a meme,
| etc.
|
| I lament that this guy may have to wear a mask, And I wish more
| venues had no photography or video. The last thing I wanted to go
| to the gym and working out, and I accidentally glance over at
| someone, who videotaped it, and then put me on the internet with
| some caption..
| poszlem wrote:
| I disagree. Filming Airsoft is no more intrusive than filming
| football matches or paintball. It's a public-facing hobby where
| documenting the experience is part of the culture, and that's a
| big reason the sport grows and attracts new players.
|
| UK law already strikes the right balance: you're free to record
| in public or semi-public spaces unless there's a specific ban,
| while also having protections against harassment or misuse.
| That's a sensible framework we should never dilute with "consent-
| by-default" rules, which would only stifle creativity and
| community sharing. If you join a hobby where cameras are
| standard, it's fair to expect that presence, not to restrict
| others' enjoyment because of hypothetical discomfort.
|
| If you don't like that, nothing stops you from setting up your
| own private games with different rules
| agedclock wrote:
| I found this frustrating to read. First the other airsoft
| participates he seems to seem to be okay with people filming.
| There is clearly no expectation of privacy.
|
| > I occasionally see people saying "well, if you don't want to be
| in photos published online, don't be in public spaces".
|
| >
|
| > This is nonsense, for a number of reasons. Clearly, one should
| be able to exist in society, including going outside one's own
| home, without needing to accept this kind of thing.
|
| There is no expectation of privacy in any place that is
| considered public.
|
| I don't like it that things are recorded around the clock or by
| anyone and be broadcast anywhere, but the ship on this has sailed
| long ago.
|
| > In any case, here, the issue is somewhat different, since it is
| a private site, where people engage in private activity (a
| hobby). > > But then I've seen the same at (private) conferences,
| with people saying "Of course I'm free to take photos of
| identifiable individuals without their consent and publish them
| online".
|
| Again is there an expectation of privacy? Are people told that
| they are not allowed to use their cameras?
|
| It is whether the is a expectation of privacy. A McDonald's or a
| Burger King is "private property", but there is no expectation of
| privacy. I would not expect privacy at an airsoft, paint-balling
| or any other outdoor activity even if it is on private property.
|
| A public toilet cubical is a public place _with_ an expectation
| of privacy.
|
| > 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 depends whether there was an expectation of privacy as whether
| it should feel wrong. If there isn't an expectation of privacy.
| Then this is nothing else than you "not liking it".
|
| > This isn't about what is legal (although, in some cases, claims
| of legality may be poorly conceived), but around my own
| perceptions of a private life, and a dislike for the fact that,
| just because one can publish such things, that one should.
|
| How else is this supposed to be tacked if not by what is legally
| permissible?
| eertami wrote:
| > There is no expectation of privacy in any place that is
| considered public.
|
| Well that entirely depends on the country - in the UK it is
| true, but it wouldn't be true in Switzerland or Germany, where
| you do have the right to privacy even in public spaces.
|
| > Then this is nothing else than you "not liking it".
|
| The author knows what the laws are, but presumably disagrees
| with the reasoning behind the laws and is criticising them. If
| someone came to Switzerland and started complaining that they
| can't install a doorbell camera, then it would also be a case
| of them 'not liking it' - but they have a right to voice their
| opinion.
| agedclock wrote:
| > Well that entirely depends on the country - in the UK it is
| true, but it wouldn't be true in Switzerland or Germany,
| where you do have the right to privacy even in public spaces.
|
| Obviously the law is different in different places.
|
| However. The person is talking about Newbury which I used to
| live near, which is in the UK. So they are talking about
| their experience in the UK.
|
| So the only law the is applicable here is UK law.
|
| > The author knows what the laws are, but presumably
| disagrees with the reasoning behind the laws and is
| criticising them.
|
| He specifically says at the end "This isn't about what is
| legal". I also don't believe he understands the law, since he
| often conflates/misuses the use of term private throughout
| the entire article.
|
| What he understands as private isn't what is understood by
| almost anyone (both legal and colloquially).
| WarcrimeActual wrote:
| >There is no expectation of privacy in any place that is
| considered public.
|
| I had a guy at Walmart yesterday call the cops on me because I
| took a picture of the strip mall it was in on a small point and
| shoot and he assumed I was for some reason taking a picture of
| him, his wife, and kid. He was literally just a random car in
| the middle of a public parking lot. The officer talked to him
| and asked that I stepped away and then she came to me. The
| conversation went exactly like this.
|
| Before she could even start to talk I told her I assumed that
| she knew that there was no expectation of privacy in public and
| that I could take a thousand pictures and there would be
| nothing that she could do about it. She agreed. She then asked
| if I'd like to give her my name (because she had no right to
| demand I do), and I said no I wouldn't like that. Then came the
| kicker. Would you like to just show me you don't have a picture
| of him. I said no I won't because I did nothing wrong and
| there's no reason for you to see my pictures. All of these were
| phrased as requests to bypass illegal search because she knew
| she was in the wrong even questioning me about it. People seem
| to really be the main character in the most boring story ever,
| at least in their minds. I have a healthy disregard for feigned
| authority anyway and was so indignant that I almost took some
| pictures of them while they talked. Trampling rights because
| Jim Bob is upset that someone dared take a picture in his
| direction rubs me the wrong way.
| martin-t wrote:
| Attention-seeking behaviors (such as an obsession with recording
| everything and putting it online) are unhealthy and a possible
| symptom of anti-social traits such as narcissism.
|
| Unfortunately for all of us, if public-by-default becomes the
| norm, then this is gonna lead to even more social cooling, more
| conformism and less freedom.
| MontyCarloHall wrote:
| Genuinely curious: what concrete negative consequences are there
| from appearing in the background of other people's photos/videos,
| in a full face mask no less?
|
| Is he afraid that someone will be able to identify him as
| engaging in a hobby that some people might be judgmental about,
| e.g. a potential employer finding the footage and concluding
| "this guy spends lots of time and money playing a children's
| game; he's clearly not a serious person." That I can understand.
|
| But it seems like his position is stronger than this:
|
| >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
|
| So essentially, it's wrong to publish any photo that happens to
| include people in the background? If I take an artistic photo at
| an art museum [0] or a restaurant [1] or a streetscape [2] and
| there happen to be people in the background, what possible harm
| could come to the people incidentally captured?
|
| [0]
| https://500px.com/search?q=the%20Met&type=photos&sort=releva...
|
| [1]
| https://500px.com/search?q=Busy%20restaurant&type=photos&sor...
|
| [2]
| https://500px.com/search?q=Times%20Square%20&type=photos&sor...
| squigz wrote:
| 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 actions and identity.
| MontyCarloHall wrote:
| 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 home and who has unsecured valuables, as has been
| done for centuries?
|
| >stalkers
|
| 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.
|
| >Google et al.
|
| The solution here is to regulate what Google et al. can do
| with your data, not regulate what people can post online.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >So said stalker would have to run facial recognition
| software on every image on the internet
|
| This argument is so poorly formed I almost believe it's in
| bad faith.
|
| Both you and I know that a stalker wouldn't do that. People
| tend to congregate their online behaviors in a very small
| circle of sites based upon their physical locations, I'm
| not going to index files in Japan to find someone in Iowa.
| Digital footprints are both large and small at the same
| time.
|
| > when it's much easier to just stake out wealthy
| neighborhoods and definitively see who's not home and who
| has unsecured valuables
|
| Because it's risky and time consuming to be there in
| person. In fact it's even easier to setup a camera in said
| neighborhoods and have software track users behavior then
| to sit around there yourself.
| iamnothere wrote:
| > 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?
|
| Stalkers often have knowledge of the victim's friends and
| associates and have no problem combing through their social
| media looking for photos.
|
| > 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.
|
| PIs will not do work for people without a legitimate
| purpose, as they could lose their license. Stalkers with
| ill intent will also be leaving a paper trail if they hire
| a PI. And non-PIs may be able to use some PI methods, but
| they won't be able to access the full range of PI tools or
| PI relationships.
| detaro wrote:
| > _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_
|
| Or use an image search engine that does facial recognition.
| Already exist, and likely to become more common.
| squigz wrote:
| > 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.
| jedimastert wrote:
| I mean the whole point of privacy is you not knowing... It kind
| of defeats the point if you need a reason, because the reason
| is probably... _private_
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| Maybe you just don't want the AI that Google is definitely
| training to predict video frames to insert your face into AI-
| generated videos?
| card_zero wrote:
| That would be the fault of Google.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| It's stated in a terms of use agreement that you are simply
| not a party to.
| wang_li wrote:
| >>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.
| sumtimes89 wrote:
| 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 do.
| wang_li wrote:
| I'm not dehumanizing it, I'm making it clear that
| photography is generally a passive activity. Where's the
| line between "don't record me" and "don't look at me"? If
| it's ok you look at you, but not record you, where's the
| line? Can someone use a telescope to look at you? Can a
| store have a camera and a live TV view of all the people
| who walk in? Can there be a live camera that captures the
| people on a sidewalk and display it on a giant billboard on
| the side of a building? If you're at a sporting event can
| they aim a camera at you in the crowd and put you on the
| jumbotron? These are all amplifications of visibility,
| which ones are allowed and which are not. And why should
| you be able to insist on the absolute bare minimum of
| noticeability when you are out in public?
| Ntrails wrote:
| > what concrete negative consequences are there
|
| It isn't necessarily about _consequences_. I don 't want photos
| of me on the internet. I don't like the idea that other people
| get to do that without my consent.
|
| I don't have any power to stop it. I am not even sure I should,
| or what limits it should have. But I don't think I should need
| to justify that as a preference.
| advisedwang wrote:
| There are A LOT of concrete reasons you might not want to be
| recorded at an airsoft event:
|
| * Don't want to be ridiculed if you look silly (it is airsoft,
| after all)
|
| * It's distracting to be videoed
|
| * You have a stalker trying to find information about you
|
| * Makes you feel pressure to put on make up and look "decent"
|
| * Something you say might sound bad out of context and result
| in being ostracized or otherwise socially punished
|
| * You might have a secret airsoft tactic or codes you don't
| want people to know about
|
| * You don't want facial recognition trained on you
|
| * You told someone you couldn't go to their party because you
| are sick and don't want to get caught lying
|
| * etc etc
|
| These aren't all huge issues, but they are reasonable.
| tintor wrote:
| * You called-in sick for work :)
| bsder wrote:
| > Genuinely curious: what concrete negative consequences are
| there from appearing in the background of other people's
| photos/videos, in a full face mask no less?
|
| How about if you're overweight, doing airsoft to try to get
| into shape, and bellyflop into some mud on video?
|
| That's social media crack right there, boys and girls.
|
| Can you understand why someone might _not_ want that kind of
| thing posted?
| mothballed wrote:
| I wonder what would happen if someone wore a T-shirt with an ITAR
| restricted weapons blueprint on it or something. Hypothetically
| it would be legal to display that in public in the US, but
| illegal to post it publicly facing for foreigners to access on
| the internet.
|
| Even if it were a gray area, the serious penalties would probably
| be enough to make someone want to blur it out.
| waste_monk wrote:
| > Hypothetically it would be legal to display that in public in
| the US
|
| Would it? I'm certainly not a lawyer or ITAR expert, but I
| would think that if you walked through a public space where you
| couldn't positively confirm that everyone present (and everyone
| who might view it transitively via video recordings, live
| streams, etc.) was OK to access the materiel on the shirt, that
| would be considered an export and you'd be in big trouble.
| mothballed wrote:
| I'm no ITAR expert either, but IDK how wearing a T-shirt
| could possibly be an export. My lay understanding of export
| is that the information would somehow have to leave the
| country; if someone looks at the T-shirt and transmits it out
| the country they'd be the exporter, not the person wearing
| the T-shirt. If someone records the t-shirt and transmits it,
| they'd be the exporter.
| dlgeek wrote:
| I'll continue in the "not an expert" chain, but my
| understanding is that ITAR's prohibitions include
| communicating the information to a non-US person (a US
| person is a citizen or permanent resident), even if that is
| done on US soil.
| waste_monk wrote:
| >My lay understanding of export is that the information
| would somehow have to leave the country;
|
| It's not just physical items like munitions, but also
| things like transfers of information (blueprints, technical
| data, documentation, etc.) or services being performed,
| regardless of where (inside or outside the USA) or how
| (paper, electronic, verbal, etc.) it takes place.
|
| Have a look at [1] SS 120.50 (Export) and SS 120.63
| (definition of Foreign person).
|
| >if someone looks at the T-shirt and transmits it out the
| country they'd be the exporter, not the person wearing the
| T-shirt.
|
| I believe the person wearing the shirt would be considered
| the exporter, as that is the point where the information
| moves from (I'm assuming for the purposes of conversation)
| an USA citizen to a foreign person.
|
| But again, I could be wrong. Safest bet is not to print the
| shirt to begin with :)
|
| [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-22/chapter-I/subchap
| ter-M...
| mothballed wrote:
| Hmm... I'd be interested to look at any 1A cases
| regarding that. I'm unable to find any 1A exceptions
| regarding mere information on weapons. The US is allowed
| to suspend constitutional rights at border controls,
| which is how they prevent exporting the information
| outside the US, but I'd bet dollars to donuts the
| blueprints/information part is unenforceable as non-
| commercial speech within the US.
|
| Here's an example of T-shirt with a machinegun blueprint
| on it for instance, for sale in USA without any checks as
| to your immigration status [note US law considers a
| device that induces automatic fire as a 'machinegun'
| despite the fact the device itself isn't really a gun]:
|
| https://ctrlpew.com/product/yankee-boogle-tee-gatalog-
| editio...
| wang_li wrote:
| ITAR was circumvented for PGP by publishing a book of the
| source code and exporting that. I fail to see how publishing a
| video would be different.
| mothballed wrote:
| My understanding following Cody Wilson's lawsuit to publish
| gun plans online, which is a more recent case, did not follow
| that. He ended up having to follow ITAR export compliance,
| although he was allowed unlimited distribution to US
| nationals and granted an ITAR license that might let him
| export under the conditions of that license.
| On remand to the district court, and on the eve of changes to
| the federal export regulations, the U.S. State Department
| offered to settle the case, and on July 27, 2018, Defense
| Distributed accepted a license to publish its files along
| with a sum of almost $40,000.[6][7]
|
| Nowadays you'll find most gun plans end up on odyssee or
| surreptitiously on github or something like that. If you go
| to high-profile 3d gun websites they will almost always point
| you to a decentralized server that the government can't go
| after.
|
| It seems maybe they might allow you to export it, but you'd
| have to get a license first, even if they were required to
| issue it to you could take years of lawsuits that a youtuber
| probably will not pursue?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Distributed_v._United_.
| ..
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Social dance (swing, Latin, etc) has some of this too. I think
| generally where most scenes have fallen is "only film yourself
| and your friends, unless it's something intentionally
| performative like a jam circle or competition, in which case go
| nuts."
| exodust wrote:
| Not to mention EDM festivals. Remote bush doofs where everyone
| is off their chops, escaping reality, dancing during the day,
| exposed in the light.
|
| Being recorded in 4k from different angles including action
| cams on people's heads on the dance floor, is a far cry from
| the relative anonymity of festivals of old. I remember when the
| only people who'd see you all bright eyed and bushy tailed were
| other participants in the party mayhem, which is how it should
| be.
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| If this was beach volleyball I would be more inclined to agree
| with the poster, but surely everyone is wearing face masks
| playing Airsoft?
| diflartle wrote:
| As an avid beach volleyball player, every tournament and most
| league games have one or more people recording them with cell
| phones or go pros on tripods at the end line. Just part of the
| game.
|
| Nobody bats an eye, I assume because we're already out in
| public, basically in bathing suits.
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| I'm surprised that YouTube doesn't have a "blur everyone's faces
| except for me" feature to post process on videos
| stackedinserter wrote:
| Their venue, their rules. If you don't like them, go to somewhere
| else or run with airsoft "gun" alone.
| masfuerte wrote:
| Many people are claiming it is legal but it's not that simple in
| Europe and the UK.
|
| It is legal (in most places) to film people in public but it is
| not necessarily legal to post the video to social media.
|
| The Irish Data Protection Commission says:
|
| > There is nothing in the General Data Protection Regulation
| (GDPR) that prohibits people from taking photos in a public
| place. Provided you are not harassing anyone, taking photographs
| of people in public is generally allowed and most likely will
| qualify for the household exemption under Article 2(2)(c) of the
| GDPR.
|
| > However, what you do with that photo can potentially become a
| data protection issue, for example, if the photograph, which
| contained the personal data of individuals, was sold for
| commercial gain or was posted publicly on a social media account.
| Under those circumstances, you are likely to be considered a data
| controller which brings with it a host of obligations and duties
| under data protection law. In particular, it would be necessary
| for you to demonstrate, amongst other things, your lawful basis
| for the processing of such personal data under Article 6(1) of
| the GDPR.
| jedimastert wrote:
| 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 wasn't amazing but it's really important to play
| publicly in order to grow as a musician, and that means kinda
| sucking in public. I would not have become a musician if I didn't
| have that supportive community.
|
| In this day and age, if I were to do that, someone would probably
| live stream it or film it on their phone and put it on YouTube,
| then It would get found by the kind of awful kids that like to
| make other people feel awful for no reason, then they would have
| found my like Facebook or social media or something, I'd catch
| shit at school, and I never would have touched an instrument
| again.
|
| So yeah, save your highlight reels for someone else, thanks.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| It may be an exaggeration but it feels like half the problem
| with the internet has been this sort of "dunk culture" that's
| proliferated in the past 10-15 years. How heinous is it that
| anybody can gain significant notoriety by just providing a
| steady supply of innocent people to lambast?
| scuff3d wrote:
| It's definitely not an exaggeration. YouTubers talk about
| this all the time. The videos that do the best are the ones
| that are negative.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| One day somebody is going to run for President who had an
| extensively online youth and it's going to be wild.
| renewiltord wrote:
| 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.
| al_borland wrote:
| They still get used to try and discredit him all the time.
| Same with the videos of AOC dancing.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Yeah but both of those are clearly ineffective since both
| those people won their respective elections.
| sentientslug wrote:
| I get your point but even if elected it can sway public
| perception of character
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Any negative perception of JD Vance is due to his recent
| behavior and statements, not from his awkward youth.
| greycol wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if spurious criticisms about an
| awkward youth and couch fucking have inured him to very
| real criticism of his governance.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| I don't know if that's the best example when the
| presidential candidate running has literal criminal records
| against him. We are clearly not in times where "binders
| full of women" is an election ending quote.
| frou_dh wrote:
| A counterbalance is that there's such a colossal volume of new
| YouTube 'content' published every day that approximately no one
| will end up watching an obscure video with your cameo anyway.
|
| I guess the concern then shifts to dragnet automated surveillance
| of it.
| dominicrose wrote:
| In the context of airsoft I guess you could cover yourself
| completely and why not shoot yellow plastic bullets at the
| cameraman.
|
| The cost of filming is very low. Even people who aren't
| interested in taking pictures or filming now have a camera with
| them at all times.
|
| I remember a village in Africa about 20 years ago where people
| thought cameras stole their soul.
|
| Technology steals everything it can. I mean think of all the data
| that went into google maps or chatgpt, to only name a couple of
| apps.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Switch to paintballs and shoot the cameras.
| jedimastert wrote:
| I would also push back against the whole "this is just being
| perceived in public" thing, because you're not consenting to
| being perceived by the entire planet, you were consenting to
| being perceived by _the people present and in the community_.
| Like if there 's a bully in the community, the community can do
| something about it or you can at least avoid them. Like you are
| consenting to interacting with a culture of like-minded people,
| and you know they're like-minded because they all showed up to
| the same event to do the same thing. That is not true of the open
| internet.
| tonymet wrote:
| I agree that we need a renewed social agreement on "no
| perception of privacy in public" concept now that cameras are
| everywhere, are smaller than a pinhead, and cost pennies .
|
| Laws aren't sacred, they are just the rule over the living by
| the dead. All of our privacy laws were made when the technology
| , culture and demographics were completely different.
| Terr_ wrote:
| I feel this has some parallels to concerns over house/porch
| cameras which are proliferating these days.
|
| I have no problem with the idea that _everyone_ on the street
| is recording from their porch... as long as it 's for their own
| siloed use, and it takes a conscious act for them to share it.
| If someone wants to stalk you, they'd need conscious assistance
| from your neighbors. If the police are tracking a hit-and-run,
| they need to _ask_ people for footage during a time period,
| etc.
|
| But the moment someone says "hey let's network all those with
| object/face recognition so that you can easily trace every
| person walking down the street", then we've got a problem.
| blindriver wrote:
| I have changed my mind on this topic recently. I believe that
| when you video in public everyone that gets videoed should
| require explicit permission or their face and voices should be
| removed. The only exceptions would be videoing public servants
| and if a crime is being committed. Videoing for private
| consumption would also be allowed in my opinion but not if it's
| posted in a way that more than a handful of people could see or
| if its uploaded to a site.
|
| With AI this is entirely possible and if you are going to post
| videos on youtube or anything, you should be able to afford the
| removal of non-verified participants.
| profsummergig wrote:
| Genuinely curious, not trolling, why is it considered acceptable
| to spray plastic pellets into the woods?
| pixl97 wrote:
| Why is it considered acceptable to shed millions of tons of
| tire dust in to cities where people live and breath.
|
| In the order of environmental issues, these plastic pellets are
| insignificant.
|
| If you want to get up in arms about something, look at how many
| container loads of plastic feedstock falls off of ships per
| year and you'll see a problem a million times bigger.
| dncornholio wrote:
| No alternative's being made. Only considering his own feelings,
| everyone else should follow. Expects people to not film (read:
| shoot) him because he asked. Neil's a bit of a Karen in this one
| I'm afraid.
| randomtoast wrote:
| > 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
|
| We are getting monitored all the time, we are in an age where
| cameras are omnipresent. Everyone carries one in their pocket in
| the form of a smartphone, and countless stationary cameras are
| installed throughout cities.
|
| When you walk through streets, buildings, and especially public
| facilities, you can see cameras almost everywhere. While it is
| often said that these devices exist only for security purposes
| and that footage is routinely deleted, this is no longer the
| reality. In many cases, people can request this footage through
| FOIA and use it as they wish, including uploading it to platforms
| like YouTube.
| hk__2 wrote:
| > In many cases, people can request this footage through FOIA
| and use it as they wish, including uploading it to platforms
| like YouTube.
|
| Please don't assume the world is limited to the US. In Europe
| you cannot do that.
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| When I worked for a us company, as a European, i filed a
| foia. And then a gdpr request from their eu branch. Both were
| successful- i corrected some information i knew to be
| incorrect, and there are now signs by each 'hidden' camera.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| > We are getting monitored all the time
|
| That doesn't make it right, so we should keep questioning it
| until it's right.
| card_zero wrote:
| Being _monitored,_ or tracked or stalked, is different from
| having your photo published.
| Piraty wrote:
| don't tell author about new meta glasses everybody and their
| grandma will wear 24/7 in 10y.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45283306
| mapmeld wrote:
| Google Glass has been a thing for 12 years, Snapchat's glasses
| have been around for 9. And you rarely see someone using them.
| (I'm aware of reports of ICE officers wearing the Meta glasses,
| but this is probably an extension of norms around police
| bodycams)
| detaro wrote:
| They probably are very aware, and it makes having this
| discussion more important, not less.
| posterguy wrote:
| worth looking into Camera Lucida by roland barthes, sontag's on
| photography and for something more recent, bernard stiegler's
| writings on cameras as technics if interested in some of the
| headier aspects of what cameras and photography do to culture and
| human relationships (as opposed to, say, legal implications). i
| tend to agree with the author: the presence of cameras in
| community spaces have completely ruined my relationship to those
| spaces. ive seen people here call the author a karen which,
| maybe, but the last time i went to a small DIY rock show in my
| community there were more people taking pictures than there were
| watching the show. what value is it if everyone films and uploads
| a set from a local band on youtube? what is the point?
| chaostheory wrote:
| This only applies to airsoft and paintball, but don't players
| wear full on masks for both protection and camouflage?
| aynyc wrote:
| Clearly, author needs to work on their camouflage skill like John
| Cena.
| s1mplicissimus wrote:
| I always wondered: who is picking up all that plastic waste
| afterwards? Never been myself, but I was told 1000s of shots
| being fired during one session is not an exceptional case. The
| author talks about "Running around in the woods" so I'm a bit
| concerned that this may cause undesirable amounts of
| environmental pollution.
| wmeredith wrote:
| Biodegradable airlift BB's are unfortunately an exception in
| the sport.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| I would bet that dumping a 747's worth of plastic BBs in remote
| UK woodland is probably not as bad as everyone driving their
| petrol-powered cars there.
| handoflixue wrote:
| It's being done on private property, so presumably the property
| owner is okay with that damage?
| justusthane wrote:
| That plastic is still going to be there thousands of years
| after the property passes out of the current owner's hands.
| komali2 wrote:
| Yeah unfortunately those BBs are going to stay there basically
| forever. Biodegradable means it'll degrade in like, hella hot
| temperatures that you'll never get unless there's a forest
| fire.
|
| Plus side I don't think they degrade into microplastics? And
| aerate your soil! :D
|
| Though water bottles is probably orders of magnitude more
| harmful to the planet.
| _ink_ wrote:
| Yeah, I am not looking forward to Meta glasses being widely used.
| But that is probably inevitable. Being anonym in public will be a
| dear memory from the past.
| chrischen wrote:
| I think you can make arguments for and against the fundamental
| right to record or to not be recorded.
|
| If someone is doing something bad/illegal, do we have a right to
| record/document it? If I am outside minding my own business and
| not doing anything bad, do I have a right to not be recorded?
|
| What is the difference between seeing and recalling something
| that happened vs recording? What happens when technology blurs
| the difference (for example if we all start wearing and using
| camera AR glasses)?
| strgcmc wrote:
| A purely technology-minded compromise to this question (aka how
| to support both the "good" and "bad" kinds of recording), is
| probably something along the lines of expiry and enforcing a
| lack of permanence as the default (kind of like, the digital
| age recording-centric version of "innocent until proven
| guilty", which honestly is one of the greatest inventions in
| the history of human legal systems). Of course, one should
| never make societal decisions purely from a technological
| practicality standpoint.
|
| Since you can't be sure what is "bad"/illegal, and people will
| just record many things anyways without thinking too much about
| it --> then the default should be auto-expiring/auto-deletion
| after X hours/days, unless some reason or some confirmation is
| provided to justify its persistence.
|
| For example, imagine we lived in a near-future where AI
| assistants were commonplace. Imagine that recording was
| ubiquitous but legally mandated to default into being
| "disappearing videos" like Snapchat, but for all the major
| platforms (YouTube, TikTok, X, Twitch, Kick, etc.). Imagine
| that every day, you as a regular person doing regular things,
| get maybe 10000 notifications of, "you have been recorded in
| video X on platform Y, do you consent for this to be
| persisted?", and also law enforcement has to go through a judge
| (kind of like a search warrant) to file things like
| "persistence warrants", and then maybe there is another
| channel/method for concerned citizens who want to persist video
| of a "bad guy" doing "bad things" where they can request for
| persistence (maybe it's like an injunction against auto-
| deletion until a review body can look at the request)...
| Obviously this would be a ton of administrative overhead, a ton
| of micro-decisions to be made -- which is why I mentioned the
| AI-assistant angle, because then I can tell my personal AI
| helper, "here are my preferences, here is when I consent to
| recording and here is when I don't... knowing my personal
| rules, please go and deal with the 10000 notifications I get
| every day, thanks". Of course if there's disagreement or lack
| of consensus, some rules have to be developed about how to
| combine different parties wishes together (e.g. take a
| recording of a child's soccer game, where maybe 8 parents
| consent and 3 parents don't to persistence... perhaps it's
| majority rule so persistence side wins, but then majority has
| to pay the cost of API tokens to a blurring/anonymization
| service that protects the 3 who didn't want to be persisted --
| that could be a framework for handling disputed outcomes?)
|
| I'm also purposefully ignoring the edge-case problem of, what
| if a bad actor wants to persist the videos anyways, but in
| short I think the best we can do is impose some civil legal
| penalties if an unwilling participant later finds out you kept
| their videos without permission.
|
| Anyways, I know that's all super fanciful and unrealistic in
| many ways, but I think that's a compromise sort of world-
| building I can imagine, that retains some familiar elements of
| how people think about consent and legal processes, while
| acknowledging the reality that recording is ubiquitous and that
| we need sane defaults + follow-up processes to review or
| adjudicate disputes later (and disputes might arise for trivial
| things, or serious criminal matters -- a criminal won't consent
| to their recording being persisted, but then society needs a
| sane way to override that, which is what judges and warrants
| are meant to do in protecting rights by requiring a bar of
| justification to be cleared).
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| On one hand: You are not nearly as important or meaningful as you
| think, and no ones brain will store and index your face for more
| than the length of the video. With online content the way it is
| now, you are a blade of grass in a continental sized grassland.
| It should be liberating to understand how little anyone actually
| cares.
|
| On the other hand: The threat of being fed into a future AI-god
| is real, the the downstream effects unknown.
| reactordev wrote:
| In Airsoft, there's a niche audience for people wanting to see
| other people get hit. Just like there's a niche audience for
| people who like watching car crashes. Just like there's a niche
| audience for people who like...
|
| While you may not like being recorded, the player is well within
| their right to do so. Just label them a "mech" and award 5 points
| for the take down. If you have a squad of filmers, put them all
| together. Your problem is now isolated to the roaming mech beast
| in the woods. Flank right and live out your day.
| TomMasz wrote:
| I do a lot of photography, including "street" photography, but I
| don't shoot photos of people. I believe that you should be asked
| for your consent to be photographed, and I tend to avoid social
| interaction whenever possible. I empathize with the author here.
| I would probably say "yes" in that situation, but I would also
| expect to be asked.
| pks016 wrote:
| I also do occasional street photography. I'm opposite of your
| view. I don't ask for consent and take photos (even candids).
| People rarely have problems. If they have, they'll come and ask
| me not to include them in the frame.
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| > This is nonsense, for a number of reasons. Clearly, one should
| be able to exist in society, including going outside one's own
| home, without needing to accept this kind of thing.
|
| I think this is the rule that is currently under renegotiation in
| society. At one point you could imagine saying "I should be able
| to go out in public without having had a certain medical
| procedure (like a vaccine)." Now, I don't agree with that.
|
| The overton window of behaviours is always shifting and not
| always in ways that we like.
| ozim wrote:
| Well I never liked bigger Airsoft events - going into some
| abandoned buildings with 5-10 guys we know well to play was
| always best fun for me.
|
| Downside is you cannot do that in current circumstances.
| SamPatt wrote:
| Unfortunately, being serious about privacy is socially damaging.
| I've experienced it.
|
| I eventually accepted that being outside my home meant I gave up
| on my privacy. I still take it seriously in my home and online,
| but not in public.
|
| I'd love to see the culture shift on this, but I won't hold my
| breath.
| humanfromearth9 wrote:
| Doesn't a LIDAR break digital cameras?
|
| Maybe those who don't want to be filmed should be walking around
| with some portable LIDAR device, de facto breaking the cameras of
| people who don't respect their desire to not be filmed.
| deadbabe wrote:
| I don't understand the author, everyone in airsoft wears masks?
| You're an anonymous person, just a brief obstacle the cameraman
| shoots quickly on his way to the _real_ fire fight.
| physicsguy wrote:
| The thing that I find more frustrating than anything is photos of
| children. I'm not so bothered about myself.
|
| I have a young child - he's two and a half. Most people are
| considerate and ask if it's OK to take a photo - and I generally
| say yes if it's friends - but we were at a wedding recently and a
| staff member, total stranger, at the venue was laughing at him
| running around and asked if they could take a picture, and then
| got stroppy when I said no. I just think it's quite strange
| behaviour to want to take photos of a child you don't know. It's
| quite different to the professional photographer taking photos
| for the hosts in my mind, which you basically accept by bringing
| your kids to an event like that.
|
| A mum at a playgroup just took out phone and started filming my
| son playing with her child. My wife asked her to stop and she
| again got quite stroppy, even though the group explicitly said
| that photos should only be taken with consent in that space!
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Does stroppy mean angry where you're from? Where's that?
| physicsguy wrote:
| I'm from the UK
|
| It does yes but more like in a bad mood. A teenager who is
| rolling their eyes and making a comment because they've been
| asked not to do something could be described as having a
| strop.
| Extropy_ wrote:
| It's clear that "privacy " in public spaces requires a fair bit
| of entitlement, why can't we all just love one another and let it
| go? What harm comes from being in someone's cool AirSoft video?
| Is it just a matter of principle that bothers you or something
| deeper?
| hedora wrote:
| For one thing, the video might have objectionable content
| edited into it.
|
| For instance, one video could be filmed by a genocidal maga
| nutjob, and a second could be a documentary about how PLA
| doesn't biodegrade, made by a woke LGBTQ+ immigrant with a
| working understanding of chemistry, physics and biology.
|
| Almost 100% of the US would be upset to know they supported the
| production of at least one of those videos.
| Extropy_ wrote:
| That they're upset does not mean that the world should bend
| to their feelings. I think you would agree that getting upset
| does not necessarily mean something is wrong externally,
| oftentimes things are wrong internally. Thank you for taking
| the time to reply
| firesteelrain wrote:
| > 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
|
| Not wrong, it's rude.
|
| Be nice to just live without needing to feel like crowd sourced
| surveillance all the time.
| damnesian wrote:
| >well, if you don't want to be in photos published online, don't
| be in public spaces
|
| equates to
|
| >you only have to worry about surveillance if you are doing
| something wrong.
|
| This is, 100% guaranteed, a systematically injected narrative.
| blackhaj7 wrote:
| I feel like this a lot of the time too.
|
| The author describes the sentiment nicely. I don't like it, it
| feels icky but I also don't ask people to stop. I just wish that
| culturally it wasn't assumed to be ok by default
| skwee357 wrote:
| I feel it spans way wider than just hobbies. For example, when
| people film in gyms, which is a private place. Or everywhere you
| go, there is a good chance you will be in someone's
| vlog/photo/youtube video.
| hk1337 wrote:
| There's several caveats to this but generally it seems silly to
| me to worry about people posting pictures with you in it. It
| seems a bit selfish to me to be concerned about "your image"
| being out in public instead of living in the moment.
|
| I think though, with the internet and social media came 2-3
| generations that really wanted to share what was going on in
| their lives with other people and with that came harsh resistance
| to even being in the background of someone's picture.
|
| I thought this post was going to be about not wanting to share
| their hobby in a blog, pictures, or video form. This is something
| I have struggled with, because I would like to get started with
| blogging and a podcast but I have held back because a lot of
| people are so mean and harsh with their replies and I tend to
| take things so personally that it really hurts and keeps me from
| doing it.
| hereme888 wrote:
| Agree with author. Laws do not necessarily dictate right vs.
| wrong. Filming others to publicly share that video may be legally
| allowable, is unethical regardless of the laws. It's like those
| crazy people who start playing their social media feed without
| headphones in public places like airplanes, or bathroom
| stalls....it's so weird, and annoying.
| DemocracyFTW2 wrote:
| > I am very much enjoying my newly-resurrected hobby of Airsoft.
| Running around in the woods, firing small plastic pellets at
| other people
|
| What's wrong with you?
| gwbas1c wrote:
| The one time I was accidentally captured on video, I was filtered
| out, but I actually wish I was there.
|
| Many years ago, I went to a Green Day concert where they played
| 21st Century breakdown for the first time. There was a large
| video camera on a crane above the floor. About a year later, I
| visited a friend and we played Green Day's (then) new Rockband
| game.
|
| I noticed that Tre's dance around his drums looked awfully
| familiar, and then at the end of one song, the camera focused on
| a statue next to the stage, that I was staring at before the
| show. My friend didn't believe me when I told him I was in the
| concert they recorded to make the game.
|
| Unfortunately, all the people in the crowd were removed and
| replaced with faceless stick-figure-like people. I really wish my
| face was in there, because it would have proved that I was there,
| and give me something to look for when someone else is playing
| the game.
| NoSalt wrote:
| This is an issue a lot of gyms are facing; idiot "influencers"
| coming in and not caring who or what they film. It is really up
| to the private establishment to set rules for taking images and
| video within their facilities, but most will allow it because
| they want that almighty dollar to continue flowing in.
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| This is one of the reasons I use the free county gym -- there
| are no influencers here (it's bare bones dudes slamming
| weights, only). I used to pay for a membership at a higher-end
| local establishment (and could still afford to), but got tired
| of all the glimglam of social gyms. The only thing I miss is
| the yoga class.
| trumbitta2 wrote:
| I can relate, and it's especially concerning when it comes to my
| child ending up in videos (and pictures) by random people.
| ibejoeb wrote:
| > I occasionally see people saying "well, if you don't want to be
| in photos published online, don't be in public spaces".
|
| > This is nonsense, for a number of reasons. Clearly, one should
| be able to exist in society, including going outside one's own
| home, without needing to accept this kind of thing.
|
| I feel the same way, but that's just not reality anymore. If you
| go outside your home, you're on camera. If your home faces your
| neighbor's door, you're probably on camera even in your own home
| unless you have constant obstruction of your windows and doors. I
| regularly see camera on apartment doors surveilling the interior
| of secure high-rise residential buildings. Guess you just gotta
| know when unit 18A takes out the trash...
| trahlyta_blue wrote:
| This is a concern I also have in youth sports. People are filming
| practice and games then posting that on social media and
| sometimes the goal is to show their child (sometimes as young as
| 5) "embarrassing" someone's else's child with a move. It's
| unfortunately very common.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| I understand the overall sentiment of the post, but in this
| particular example, isn't everyone who's playing airsoft wearing
| a full face mask anyways?
| blitzar wrote:
| I don't want to be someones "content", even if it is due to my
| rougish good looks and a suave mix of bond with john wick on the
| airsoft battlefield.
| aeternum wrote:
| You can always leave or ask the airsoft organizers to make new
| rules. The more interesting question is whether there's some
| legal avenue to avoid being someone's "content".
|
| Reality TV has to get consent + releases so where is the line?
| ascendantlogic wrote:
| Seems like the most reasonable answer would be to have days where
| no video was permitted, and days where it is. Then you can attend
| on the days where no video is permitted but the ones who like
| creating and uploading videos can have their chances as well.
| duncangh wrote:
| Have you considered taking up your hobby in Afghanistan? Somewhat
| tongue in cheek, but a locality under the Taliban have ratified a
| morality law that bans photography of living things
| https://apnews.com/article/afghanistan-taliban-media-moralit...
| philwelch wrote:
| This is a very reasonable concern in the general case, but
| airsoft in particular is probably one of the few social
| activities where it's not entirely out of place to wear a
| balaclava and tinted goggles.
| deepsun wrote:
| One time I rented and apartment (in California), and the
| agreement said they can make promotional media with me. I tried
| to fight it, but they didn't really care -- big real estate
| company is not going to redline legal agreement for me.
| praptak wrote:
| How does the new Denmark "copyright on your body, face and voice"
| work in this aspect? I read that the intention is to combat
| deepfakes but does it also work for uses like this?
| tokai wrote:
| It wouldn't do anything in this case. Its only about
| manipulated media content that imitate personal
| characteristics.
| aunty_helen wrote:
| I had this when I rode with a motorbike group. It was a loose
| collection of people that rode a specific route on the weekend.
|
| I only went a few times, but it was obvious the people with the
| cameras were looking for interesting content and drama. I cut an
| open corner and ended up in the highlight reel as some example of
| what not to do. Even though everyone there was 50% over the speed
| limit and riding "dangerously" in the eyes of others, what got
| put on the video was the interesting stuff. And of course, you
| never got to see the speedo of the camera man as he went 2-3
| times the limit.
|
| Another biker I knew said he didn't ride with those guys because
| they're just out there to bait for content.
| berkes wrote:
| We, a group of people living on a street where we get a lot of
| dangerous motorbikers passing our homes, started collecting
| these video's recently.
|
| Our goal is to get the roads closed for motorbikes, place bike-
| repelling infrastructure and to have police involved in the
| many cases of one-sided accidents. For that we need to convince
| local governments that motorbikes are misbehaving.
|
| So we now sift through instagram, youtube, etc to find such
| video's you mention where they ride "our" roads. Or where
| individuals that we've seen riding our roads misbehave in other
| places. This is obviously nothing "legal proof", but it's a
| growing dossier. And also a clear reason why someone may not
| want to be filmed. In one case, a motorbike lost control,
| narrowly missed a thick metal bar and plowed through two front
| yards of neighbors. Police was involved. We managed to find
| this individual on several other such videos clearly racing way
| over the speed limit. He lost his drivers licence. Not because
| of the video's, but they did help make the case this person was
| structurally misbehaving, not a one-time mistake or technical
| error.
|
| ---
|
| Sidenote, to illustrate this is not a few "get off my lawn"
| people, but that this is an actual problem: These motorbikers
| are but a few dozen individuals over the year, yet their noise
| and the danger and agression towards others road users is out
| of any proportion. This is a quiet nature reserve where people
| come to run, stroll, watch birds, go swimming with family,
| drive grandma around, bicycle, skate, picknick. Where our kids
| play and where our teens cycle to school. On busy days there
| can be hundreds of cyclists and pedestrians in a sunny
| afternoon. The speed limit is mostly 30km/h (18mph), the road
| is 2.5 to 3m (8-9ft) wide, traffic from both sides. Motorbikers
| have been seen to hit 130km/h (80mph). Where children are
| cycling, couples are walking, fitgirls skating and so on.
| scratchyone wrote:
| lol why do you want to punish all motorcycle riders instead
| of the actual people who are misbehaving....
| jacobgkau wrote:
| New people will always be popping up to misbehave.
| Addressing the problem at the infrastructure level is the
| only way to ensure it's permanently solved.
|
| Kind of like "why would you want to build a pedestrian
| bridge instead of just jailing the driver who hit someone
| at that intersection." The odds that it'll be the last time
| are basically zero.
| aunty_helen wrote:
| I sympathise with this, people who are endangering others
| deserve consequences of the law. I live in a city near a
| straight road and often hear bikes step through 2-3 gears at
| night. I know how fast that is and it's dangerous.
|
| One of the reasons I stopped riding with this group was a few
| people there didn't have a strong will to live and so
| adrenaline and confrontation was what they were looking for.
|
| The specific route I mentioned though is 50km outside of the
| nearest city, through a wasteland and ridden at times to
| minimise traffic getting in the way. The best time was 6pm on
| a Tuesday night where you'd be lucky to pass anyone.
| JadoJodo wrote:
| I feel this about all of the AI notetaking bots that everyone is
| adding to web meetings these days:
|
| "Welcome to the meeting. Your voice is now being recorded and
| sent to a server somewhere in the world to be processed by an AI
| and you have zero control over it. If we were to get hacked, it
| will be impossible to you know if your voice will be synthesized
| and used to scam, abuse, or any other nefarious purposes between
| now and the end of time. Happy meeting!"
|
| I've seriously been in meetings with 3+ AI bots from different
| companies I've never heard of.
| dheera wrote:
| On the flipside, if I'm attending a meeting, I should have a
| right to my choice of disability assistance. I have glasses to
| deal with vision impairment, and notetaking assistance to deal
| with short term memory impairment. The AI is a part of
| cybernetic "me", rather than the platform.
| djoldman wrote:
| Check out first amendment auditing for a look at the edges of
| this at least in the USA.
| dpcan wrote:
| I feel like I can't really have fun and be myself when I see
| people shooting video all around me.
|
| I like to be silly with my kids and close friends, I like to act
| out around the people who find me fun or funny. But the rest of
| the world would ridicule me, or make fun of me, or make me a meme
| possibly.
|
| This makes me sad because as a young man I could just be out
| there and fun, and at the end of the day, I held a place in the
| memories of my closest friends, maybe a handful of bystanders.
| But today, I could be gif'd and immortalized for my silly actions
| without my permission.
|
| I disagree with the sentiment, you're in public, it's fair game.
| That just means I have to bend to your world-view, and you don't
| have to be considerate of mine.
| arghwhat wrote:
| > This is nonsense, for a number of reasons. Clearly, one should
| be able to exist in society, including going outside one's own
| home, without needing to accept this kind of thing.
|
| I find these kinds of argument somewhat odd, as they imply that
| "this kind of thing" is some unacceptable violation of clearly
| pre-established rights.
|
| Rather, one must realize that existing in society always had the
| implication of being visible to society, and that public spaces
| are just that: a place accessible to all, where if you chose to
| be you must also accept being observed by its other attendants.
|
| Some physical public spaces might be crammed so full of people
| that it's hard to breathe, while others will have them few and
| far in between. Some virtual public spaces might be breaking
| records with their viewer counts, others will never be graced
| with the presence of an eyeball. Streamers just connect a
| physical public space with a virtual public space.
|
| Being _recorded_ and published in a final edit of an on-demand
| video is slightly different (and not implied in streaming), but
| that is a much older dilemma that we have had more time to adjust
| to and hammer out rights regarding, and few would really pay
| attention to someone recording on the street with anything other
| than slight curiosity.
|
| So no. I believe this is the society you must accept being a
| member of. The only thing that has changed with time is the
| medium (memory and word-of-mouth, paintings, photos, video
| recording and finallys livestreaming), not the actions. But as
| important, being caught on rando streamer's camera will by
| default only contribute about as much to your internet fame (and
| loss of privacy) as going to the local grocery store.
|
| (For those curious if age contributes to the standpoint, I'd fall
| in the 30-40 bucket.)
| MisterTea wrote:
| Last year I was at a concert hanging outside enjoying a J and my
| beer. Suddenly there were four young women shoving a phone in my
| face asking me questions. I was a deer in the headlights. Turns
| out they were live streaming and just talking to random people.
| It made me quite uncomfortable - who's on the other end looking
| at me? They were later live streaming from the pit...
|
| Of course Ive had video cameras in my face before at concerts but
| they weren't streaming and the results were probably seen by very
| few people. Now its instant broadcast to whoever is on the other
| end.
| djoldman wrote:
| I am not a lawyer.
|
| In the USA, anyone is allowed to photograph, video, or otherwise
| record anything they can see from a public sidewalk, subject to
| some soft restrictions like it being illegal to impede the
| movement of others. Any attempt by law enforcement or others to
| restrict this would likely fail in the courts.
|
| Folks can get pretty upset by this in the real world.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| The story is about a person on private grounds. They could talk
| to the owner and ask them to make a rule about no filming, but
| the owners probably like filming because if a cut goes viral on
| their airsoft grounds, it's like free advertising.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| I think the issue is "available to the whole world". "Back in the
| day" people would take photos or even videos (remember
| camcorders?) and it wasn't a big deal because well, only that
| person would have it and maybe show it to some friends or family
| (or give you a copy).
|
| But now it means archived for the whole world to see, potentially
| forever. 30 years from now, someone might dig it up.
|
| So it's not so much about the photography (which as someone
| pointed out, might be allowed in public places), it's about
| posting the photos/videos into a potentially eternal public
| archive.
| procaryote wrote:
| > I could, I suppose, ask each person that I see with a camera
| "would you mind not including me in anything you upload,
| please?". And, since everyone with whom I've spoken at games, so
| far anyway, has been perfectly pleasant and friendly, I'd be
| hopeful that they would at least consider my request. I have not
| done this.
|
| I've done this several times in various contexts. If you ask in a
| nice way, it usually works
|
| If you don't ask, it's very unlikely people will have the
| telepathy needed to understand what you quietly want
|
| For air-soft specifically it is also very feasible to wear a full
| face mask and become very hard for regular people to recognise.
| artursapek wrote:
| Running around littering the forest with plastic, and he is
| concerned about his privacy. This is the state of modern man.
| miladyincontrol wrote:
| I relate some to the premise but for an entirely different reason
| than privacy.
|
| Simply one of my less common hobbies has an incredibly high hit
| rate of gimmick social media accounts stealing videos for their
| own profit, with zero credit, while highly misrepresenting
| things. A problem not nearly unique to the hobby nor any one type
| of media, but a problem plaguing it nonetheless.
|
| Its basically pushed an already obscure hobby even more so.
| exabrial wrote:
| > vim over emacs
|
| Hell Yes lol
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| Is the airsoft range on public property? If not, you could
| probably complain to the owners. If its on public property then
| you probably can't do much about it except complain to YouTube
| and ask them to take it down.
| nmilo wrote:
| > I could, I suppose, ask each person that I see with a camera
| "would you mind not including me in anything you upload,
| please?". And, since everyone with whom I've spoken at games, so
| far anyway, has been perfectly pleasant and friendly, I'd be
| hopeful that they would at least consider my request. I have not
| done this.
|
| I feel like the reasonable place to start is here no? Why write
| this whole post when this would probably be easier?
| zahlman wrote:
| > when this would probably be easier?
|
| I don't think it would be. It sounds incredibly tedious in the
| long run.
| Kon5ole wrote:
| Even simpler, have a discussion with the group once and have
| cameras either be prohibited on all days except X, or allowed
| on all days except X, depending on the majority preference.
| irrational wrote:
| I have the same issue with board gamers. Now, admittedly it isn't
| as intrusive as audio/video uploads. But so many want to record
| the game along with the names of the players. When I request they
| don't use my actual name and just put Player A (or whatever) they
| look at me like I'm a weirdo. When did it become weird to want as
| little information about yourself to be online?
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| I think I'm sympathetic to both sides of this.
|
| If my kid is on some fun Disney ride, and I take a short video of
| them, and also there are some other people in the background or
| also on the ride, I would still fee comfortable sharing the
| video. Well, I wouldn't, because I don't put videos of my kids
| online, but if I was comfortable doing that, I wouldn't feel
| deterred by the presence of others.
|
| But also, if someone else takes a photo of my kids in public (or
| at Disney), I would feel somewhat uncomfortable about it, and I'd
| feel even more uncomfortable about finding that photo online.
|
| I don't know how to square that, ethically. Sometimes I see posts
| on Reddit that go "hey, I was out at the beach, and I saw this
| couple proposing, and I got this amazing photo of it, does anyone
| know them so I can send them a copy," and I think "you just took
| one of the most important, intimate, private moments of this
| couple's life and posted it online without their permission," but
| it doesn't seem to upset anyone because the couple will look
| really great in the photo. Does that make a difference? I've got
| no answers for this, just questions.
| iagooar wrote:
| I would like to share an even more extrem version of this.
|
| I come from a country that could be potentially affected by the
| Russian-Ukranian war.
|
| A couple of years ago, the government presented a program for
| volunteers, consisting of a military crash-course over a weekend
| to get to know the basics. Military service is voluntary in my
| country, so I thought it might actually be a good idea to have
| had a rifle in my hand at least once. You never know.
|
| So I decided to sign up and got a few documents to sign. One of
| them was explicit consent for the organizing party to use any
| pictures taken during the training in order to use it as
| promotional material. No opt-out possible.
|
| You understand? They could take pictures of me during a voluntary
| training, and post them on Facebook or anywhere on the Internet!
|
| I even sent them an email asking to clarify and if I could opt
| out. They refused and would not allow me to participate if I
| didn't accept.
| tintor wrote:
| That is a positive example of respecting consent:
|
| They asked for consent before filming.
|
| You disagreed and didn't participate.
|
| They didn't record you and didn't publish video of you.
| nkrisc wrote:
| > There has been no "put on this purple lanyard if you don't want
| to be included in the public version of the video" rule, which
| I've seen work pretty well at conferences I have attended (even
| if it is opt-out rather than consent).
|
| This bothers me. The default should be not including people, and
| instead offer lanyards (or whatever) who want to be included.
|
| I know why it doesn't work that way, though.
| nakedrobot2 wrote:
| Just tell the other person "please blur my face out if you
| publish this online" in 2025, this is _easy to do_.
| nilslindemann wrote:
| In Germany, they have to ask him for his permission. If he
| insists, the video has to get deleted. If they publish the video
| without his consent, he can sue them and - aside of deleting the
| video - they may face penalties ranging from fines to
| imprisonment, though both are improbable in that context.
|
| https://www.prigge-recht.de/filmen-im-oeffentlichen-raum-was...
| tshaddox wrote:
| > I occasionally see people saying "well, if you don't want to be
| in photos published online, don't be in public spaces".
|
| > This is nonsense, for a number of reasons. Clearly, one should
| be able to exist in society, including going outside one's own
| home, without needing to accept this kind of thing.
|
| > Clearly, one should be able to exist in society, including
| going outside one's own home, without needing to accept this kind
| of thing.
|
| Well, here is the heart of the disagreement. I suspect everyone
| agrees that the social norms are "clear," they just vehemently
| disagree about what those norms are.
|
| I don't know anything specific about the implicit cultural norms
| of airsoft, but it sounds like the author is playing at a
| privately owned facility which I would expect to have very
| explicit rules and liability waivers. I'd be surprised if those
| rules don't cover photography.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| >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.
|
| Why?
|
| I dont ask this dismissively. Im not suggesting he's unjustified.
| That's just the interesting question to me and the author doesnt
| explore it. I believe this feeling is a new trend.
|
| I dont think people had these qualms, say, 20 years ago. The
| world was a very different place back then. At the end of the day
| I suppose it's because 20 years ago, even with a totally
| permissive policy, you'd never expect footage of you to reach any
| significant amount of people. It would rarely happen and when it
| did there wouldnt be a huge audience to share it with.
|
| But does it go beyond that? Would people have cared even if it
| did reach a wide audience? Is it possible people seek more
| privacy and control over their image than before? And not just as
| a reaction to how global everything is because of the internet?
| Gen Z being afraid of answering phone calls, etc.
|
| This strikes me as similar to the attitude towards phone number
| privacy. People used to publicly share their phone numbers by
| default. You were included in the phone book unless you specially
| requested not to be. Now it feels invasive for parties to ask you
| for it, even when they have some plausible reason.
| baobun wrote:
| What changed?
|
| Awareness and prevalence of dragnets, AI, surveillance economy.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| Social media is why. 20 years ago social media was not what it
| is today. The dynamics have changed.
| rkomorn wrote:
| For me, the "why" is a mix of:
|
| 1- ubiquity: now, virtually everyone's got a device capable of
| capturing high quality photo/video of you at any time
|
| 2- discoverability: social media gives anything the potential
| to go viral which might put you in the spotlight or limelight,
| and the frequency at which things can go viral "enough" is way
| higher (more platforms, larger follower counts, etc) (this is I
| assume what you meant by "reach")
|
| 3- "content creators" are everywhere: people want to turn
| anything into something, through all kinds of incentives that
| were unavailable 20 years ago, so it's a much more active
| "capture and use it" context
|
| Things just aren't the same as they were 20 years ago.
| tooape wrote:
| As a street photographer this constant video/livestreaming
| culture shift in the last 10 years has made it really hard to not
| make folks uncomfortable when out in public.
| NiloCK wrote:
| This is mostly a joke, but objects in fantasy land are sometimes
| closer than they appear.
|
| Major cloud compute and OS infra providers should provide a
| global opt-out of public bystander-recording. OK, record me, but
| it will be known by my face, location stamps from my device, etc,
| that it's me, and post-processing will anonymize me.
|
| Legitimate public interest? EG, I stole your car and it's on
| tape? Sure, provide the cloud provider with a warrant for
| 'originals'.
| Wilsoniumite wrote:
| I agree a lot with the sentiments here and I think people who
| want to avoid being filmed should have that right. But, as
| someone who doesn't mind (and is younger) I suppose I could share
| my rationalizion for it (as flawed as it may be)
|
| One often mentioned reason is the fear that in some way your
| likeness will end up in something significant, or viral. That
| makes sense, it's the most invasive and significant violation. We
| "risk becoming the side character in someone else's parasocial
| relationship" as another commentator mentioned. I myself wouldn't
| want that either, but I derive some comfort from one main
| observation: virality doesn't scale. A lot of the worries come
| from the fact that "everyone is filming now", "everything is
| shared now". That's true, but the likelihood of any of this ever
| becoming popular or even seen goes down as the volume goes up.
| That alone is enough for me to not be that worried, at least not
| by the increased prevalence of public filming/photography.
|
| On the other hand, this does nothing to limit the effect of data
| harvesting and government espionage, a real worry I might have.
| wslh wrote:
| It's interesting that you mentioned being younger. One thing
| I've noticed is that as people accumulate different experiences
| and social groups (not necessarily just because of age), they
| often develop different "personas" depending on the
| environment. In one setting, you might be an enthusiast sharing
| a video about a hobby, while in another you might be a CEO
| interacting with your team, shareholders, partners, or
| customers where you naturally behave differently. The challenge
| is managing these "many worlds" without them colliding. One
| solution that's becoming more feasible now is the ability to
| modify your appearance and voice depending on the context.
| brisky wrote:
| Great points. With Meta glasses and other similar gadgets I think
| manual consent is not enough. There should be a 'protocol' to
| announce that you don't allow your images to be included in
| social media. I propose a QR code that would signify that you
| don't want to filmed. We need to push for legislation allowing
| (returning) such liberty. After such automated consent is legal
| it will be up to social media platforms to blur and anonymize
| individuals with such preferences. Finally we will have a job
| where AI could be put to good use!
| bityard wrote:
| Somehow you eventually have to square the fact that if you do
| things outside of your home, you are going to run into other
| people, who are very much going to do whatever they want,
| regardless of any existing laws, customs, or mores. And factor
| that into your decision making.
| lbrito wrote:
| This behaviour is a thousandfold worse when you have kids,
| especially at social gatherings like birthday parties. Other
| parents (at least in my age cohort) assume it is OK to film them
| and post it to whatever social media they have without even
| asking.
| lippihom wrote:
| Here in Germany we are about to start our daughter in pre-
| school ("kita") and every single parent had to fill out a few
| forms explicitly stating if they were ok or not ok with having
| photos or videos taken of their child (both by staff and by
| other parents).
| w10-1 wrote:
| So sue. Don't expect legislators or online legions to protect
| you. Sue to protect others in the same situation.
|
| The common-law tort of invasion of privacy grows to encompass new
| situations only through court cases.
|
| Courts (i.e., judges) are not looking to create rules out of thin
| air, but look to reflect when expectations have changed in a way
| that tracks the principles behind the tort.
|
| In this case, an initial historical period of permitting
| publication by default can be followed by a restrictive period of
| prohibiting invasions, based on the recognizing dangers from
| publication, e.g., permanent and lasting damage to one's business
| relationships through disclosing of embarrassing but irrelevant
| images.
|
| To make law you have to get out of the realm of personal feelings
| and start expressing principles for the way people should live
| together.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| It's frustrating when there's a problem and you know any solution
| to it is worse than the problem itself.
|
| For instance, in my area we've recently had a couple Nazi
| demonstrations. People with swastika flags and "Hitler was right"
| signs. I'd like that to go away.
|
| But to attempt to use law to do anything about it would mean
| allowing someone to choose what others can and cannot say in
| public. That's worse, or at least at some point it will be.
|
| This is very much like that (though of course far less nefarious)
| and you just have to let people take paintball videos. Imagine if
| we didn't let people video anything they want in public. How many
| instances of police brutality would go unpunished. That's worse.
|
| My advice: start a paintball league and make that the rule. And
| yeah, it does suck to have to suddenly become an event planner
| just to not end up on YouTube but welcome to the future I guess.
| f17428d27584 wrote:
| Posting videos on YouTube is commercial use. Even if you earn no
| money, the intent is almost always to "grow the channel" to the
| point where you can monetize it, sponsorships, brand deals, etc.
|
| Commercial use in most jurisdictions is handled differently from
| the "free speech" exception. There are generous carve outs for
| art though. Which is interesting. If I sell a photograph it's art
| but if I sell it to an ad agency for use on a billboard it's
| commerce?
|
| But the world we live in is so changed, it is a very recent
| change where taking a photograph was almost always a 1:1 photo to
| print ratio. It's very new the idea that everyone is carrying
| around an internet connected video camera that can publish live
| to billions of people. This absolutely changes the calculus and
| laws should be updated accordingly.
|
| I don't know what that should look like but it seems we should
| acknowledge that this activity is primarily commercial (clout is
| marketing and/or brand value a/k/a goodwill in accounting
| parlance) and that laws intended to protect art making maybe
| don't / shouldn't protect this form of commerce as much as they
| seem to presently.
|
| To be clear: if you are in public and someone takes a
| recognizable photo of you eg your face and uses it to sell
| perfume congratulations on being beautiful and also call a lawyer
| because that use is not protected just because you were in a
| public space.
|
| But you can make a print hang it in a gallery and sell it for
| whatever price you want. (AFAIK). Maybe there's more nuance--
| could you put it in a book of your work and sell it? On the
| cover? Make postcards? NFT's (remember those?) etc.
|
| Anyway there are already limits and we should maybe enforce the
| ones that we have in some of these circumstances. I wonder if
| it's already happening- I can't be the first person to view this
| activity as commercial right? There must already be precedent
| somewhere.
|
| Just like how every YouTube gear review says "company X sent me
| this but they have no say and no money changed hands" is
| pretending it's not a sponsored video. It's absolutely a
| sponsored video. 1. You are paid for views 2. People watch
| reviews on "release day" aka embargo day 3. If you get the
| product later you will have less views and less money, and you
| will miss the window of product hype cycle.
|
| So just like every not sponsored review video is absolutely
| sponsored live-streaming a kids birthday or whatever is
| commercial and you need model releases. I guess these people will
| have to post notice of filming warnings at the door along with
| the balloons.
| Animats wrote:
| Every picture of you posted publicly will eventually be linked to
| you. Probably by Palantir.
|
| There's face recognition. There's gait recognition. There's
| inference of the likely participants from cell phone data and
| known movement patterns. Some of this is probabilistic but still
| useful. Even if the matching wasn't done at the time, it can be
| done later.
| RobRivera wrote:
| Then don't make them and be happy.
|
| Perhaps it is a generational gap, but the idea that I have to
| justify NOT attempting to squeeze a hustle out of absolutely
| everything I do reduces my trust in any content generated in
| [current year] as nothing more but a carefully crafted
| advertising space.
| pg3uk wrote:
| Aim for the expensive kit.
| ratelimitsteve wrote:
| I feel like at least part of the issue is that the internet is a
| different kind of public than everywhere else. it's not
| transient, and it's not limited to the people who happened to be
| in the same part of public as you at the same time. instead it's
| a fully-automatable, permanent record that is 100% available to
| all present and future humans. that deserves consideration to my
| mind.
| rajer wrote:
| As someone who plays a lot of online games, there is a similar
| problem with streamers. While I don't say anything I wouldn't
| want to be recorded because that's probably a good idea anyway,
| it is certainly possible I could end up in some kind a fail
| compilation or otherwise.
|
| But I don't really care, for one because the stakes are lower
| when it's fully online behind a mostly anonymous account, but
| also because I am confident if anyone was actually watching a
| streamer in my game I would find out about it.
|
| If the YouTuber at your local field was raking in views, you
| would probably know about it, and could you try to resolve it
| with them. Otherwise these videos are probably not being seen by
| anyone but their recorder.
| fsckboy wrote:
| i'm not going to address the central complaint, but what i think
| is weird about this version is the venue: everybody is
| essentially wearing a disguise, and you could consciously
| disguise yourself even more with no inconvenience except less of
| a chance of being hit in the face with a paint ball
| matt-p wrote:
| It's really interesting that the big objection is really about
| sharing the resultant video (widely).
|
| I actually feel the same, I don't really mind if I'm at the gym
| and in the back of a video someone's taking of themselves to
| review later to take notes on their form. I actually do kind of
| care if it gets posted to YouTube and now 100,000 people have
| seen me covered in sweat or struggling with something or
| whatever. It's something that's technically 'illegal' in a
| private space here in the UK, so why do we all just accept/allow
| it anyway? YouTube or Instagram could easily work out if the
| video was taken indoors and show a 'are you sure' message.
|
| Just a thought. It's not that big a deal, of course, though to
| some people it might be (for good reasons).
| elif wrote:
| The best answer is becoming comfortable with the part of yourself
| that enjoys your hobbies. Embrace it, let go of the anxiety.
| Strangers have thoughts like oceans have waves.
| whiterock wrote:
| > Running around in the woods, firing small plastic pellets at
| other people
|
| sounds like an environmental nightmare
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-09-29 23:01 UTC)