Comment by jkestner

Comment by jkestner 6 hours ago

9 replies

The fact that people were uncomfortable with simply having their pictures taken and shown without their knowledge gives lie to the idea that "You're in a public place—of course you have no right to privacy." It's great to be given the chance to face your principles.

insickness 5 hours ago

Public photography is not a crime, nor should it be. However, that doesn't mean your likeness can be used for just any purpose.

  • jolmg 4 hours ago

    > Public photography is not a crime, nor should it be.

    IDK about shouldn't. Public photography not being a crime comes from a time where one could still be generally expected to remain anonymous despite being photographed. Just like how you can be seen by strangers in the street while walking and still remain anonymous. Yet stalking is a crime, and facial recognition seems to be the digital equivalent. Facial recognition is something that can be done at any point by someone with your picture in their hand.

    • acdha 2 hours ago

      Yes. There’s also something about the sheer volume of recorded media & ease of distribution which feels like we crossed a qualitatively different threshold. The laws around photography were set in an era when it cost money to take a photograph, the cameras were easier to notice and slower, and when someone took a photo it was highly unlikely that they’d share it widely. Now it’s basically impossible to avoid cameras, people take far more pictures than they used to, and anyone’s photos can reach large audiences and often easily linked back to you. There was nothing like the way random people could see someone having a bad day, post it, and half an hour later a million strangers have seen it - a newspaper or TV station could do that, but their staffers usually ignored things which didn’t have a legitimate news interest.

      This feels kind of like the way you could avoid having extensive traffic laws & control systems in 1905 when only a few people had cars.

bongodongobob 3 hours ago

Well, in the US, in a "right to work state", an employer could say "We don't support the views of this band. We saw that you were there and are going to let you go."

Or

"Data shows you hang out in low income areas, we don't think that aligns with our companies goals."

So the "face your principals" is completely fucking arbitrary. That's the fear.