[jokoon]

What is weird is that there doesn't look like any law was broken, does it?

I was arguing with a female friend who strongly argues that people have the right to their own image, so it should be forbidden to take picture of them. On the other hand, when you go into a public place, you should be photographed because it is a matter of freedom of speech: we should be able to record people committing crimes or felonies.

I guess that it should be illegal to record people without their knowledge, if they are not committing any crime, meaning as long as the person recording is not doing it for legal or investigative purposes.

But to be honest, the problem to me, again, is how people behave online and how they gang with each others. Harassing, doxxing, and insulting people online should have consequences. It's really bad that people will write things online they might never say in front of people.

There is always a grey area about what you can do and not do about data that has other people in it. The internet has not been a good thing for privacy.

[ghaff]

It depends on the jurisdiction (2 party consent vs. 1 party, etc.). It depends if there was an "expectation of privacy." It depends if the image or video is being used for a commercial purpose like advertising. [ADDED: I'm mostly discussing the US here.]

This case is probably questionable but, to your point, if I take a picture of you canoodling in a public park I'm perfectly within my rights to publish that image so long as it's not for marketing or advertising purposes (if people are recognizable).

[Gargoyle]

I think the tweeter may end up having problems over the fact that she did try to exploit the tweets for fame and advantage. If it had been just sharing observations about something happening around her, she'd likely be fine. Trying to gain personally from the story makes it much more shaky on an ethical level for me.

And there's no excuse for encouraging people to seek out the subject's identity. Awful idea all around.

[masklinn]

> This case is probably questionable but, to your point, if I take a picture of you canoodling in a public park I'm perfectly within my rights to publish that image so long as it's not for marketing or advertising purposes (if people are recognizable).

It depends on the jurisdiction.

Mainland europe tends to have pretty strong personality rights, especially (but not solely) for non-public persons (e.g. people who aren't politicians or athletes or stars or more generally in the public consciousness).

And in many countries there you would not be within your rights to publish a specific image of a couple "canoodling in a public park". You would if you were taking a picture of something else entirely (e.g. a crowd, a public event, a landmark or monument) and they just happened to be in the frame, but not if they were the subject.

[ghaff]

My bad. I was specifically referring to the US which indeed tends to tilt more toward freedom of speech/press vs. privacy rights than many other countries do.

[prepend]

I’ve seen similar interactions where people seem to think they have a lot more power over their image than they do legally, or certainly seem like, to me, ethical should have.

I was in a local public street market and I was trying to take a picture of an o next sitting on a vendor’s table (not sure if it was a lamp, sculpture, or something else).

The guy became very irate, came out from behind the table, started yelling, bumped his chest to mine, and said I couldn’t take a picture and that I had to leave or he would call “management” and “the police.”

It was very odd and interesting because he’s set up in a public place. He wasn’t really up for discussion, but when I said that it was legal to take pictures of public spaces he said that he didn’t want me to and if I didn’t respect his wishes I had to leave. I was standing in the street where his table was set up, so it was doubly odd.

Legally, in the US, it’s fine to take photos in public spaces (and usually even sell them) [0] but I can’t find opinion poll data to see if it’s common for people to think this should be restricted.

I try to think of how this will play out given trends in tech and transhumanism. Eventually we’ll likely have total clarity archives of everything we experience. How do we balance people’s freedom to their own senses vs people’s preferences?

I think we’re covered with current laws to prevent illegal acts done with the photos (fraud, harassment, etc). But not sure what we should do to stop photos or help people not care about photos.

[0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_...

[ghaff]

I'm not sure that's a great example. In the US, legally, you're probably right. As a matter of good manners, if a vendor at a crafts fair in a public space puts up a "No photos please" sign, I'm going to respect their wishes. They're paying for a stall to sell things, not to be a photo subject.

If I'm shooting pics on a street or a park and someone makes it clear they don't want their picture taken, I'm not going to insist on my legal rights. (BTW, this is a different case from officials saying I can't take pictures of some public space because security or whatever--although I mostly won't care enough to try to make a point.)

Just because something's legal, doesn't mean you have to insist on doing it against someone's wishes.

[prepend]

This is why I was looking for opinion data as I feel quite differently in that a “please no photos” is an unreasonable request.

I’m not going out of my way to bother the person, but if I need a photo, then I will take it. I don’t think that’s part of general politeness. And being publicly visible is part of buying a stall (free in this venue).

Again, I think of this in the viewpoint of how I archive my life. Should I turn off my recording to please everyone’s various wishes, if they are unreasonable.

However, I feel differently in someone’s home or a public business where their requests may not have legal binding, but I’d certainly comply.