[crazygringo]

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?

[OtherShrezzing]

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]

> 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.

[Ekaros]

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.

[andersa]

> 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.

[op00to]

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.

[crazygringo]

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]

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?

[ixsploit]

Or you know, not making it public.

And if you might need to make the photo public, you could blur the faces.

[crazygringo]

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?

[op00to]

OP didn’t respect his fellow hobbyists by asking them to not film him. Why should OP expect respect in return?

[brna-2]

For me not necessarily, I would like a mechanism for distinction and a culture where you respect people you record.

[andersa]

Yes.

[crazygringo]

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.

[zmgsabst]

What part of those requires posting my unblurred face online?

[crazygringo]

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?

[andersa]

You can do all of those things without creating a public record of me.

[crazygringo]

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?