12 ms·
Or you know, not making it public. And if you might need to make the photo public, you could blur the faces.
by ixsploit 1y ago
Or you know, not making it public.
And if you might need to make the photo public, you could blur the faces.
- crazygringo 1y agoAnd 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?
- brna-2 1y agoFor me not necessarily, I would like a mechanism for distinction and a culture where you respect people you record.
- andersa 1y agoYes.
- crazygringo 1y agoWell, 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 1y agoYou can do all of those things without creating a public record of me.
- crazygringo 1y agoWhat 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 1y ago> 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 1y agoSorry. 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 1y agoWhy 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 1y agoBecause 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 1y agoWhat part of those requires posting my unblurred face online?
- crazygringo 1y agoWhy 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 1y agoI 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 1y agoNothing 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 1y agoYou’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.
- op00to 1y agoOP didn’t respect his fellow hobbyists by asking them to not film him. Why should OP expect respect in return?