[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?

[zmgsabst]

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]

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]

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]

> 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.

[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?

[andersa]

> 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]

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]

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]

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.