[koide]

Exactly. This has nothing to do with user submitted content per se. It's the type of content that should be regulated at least.

We shouldn't be able to prosecute revenge porn on the annoyed ex's blog (as long as he's hosting it himself, I imagine porn would violate public blog sites TOSs)

But we should be able to go after for profit, privacy invading sites that allow anonymous uploading.

This reminds me, why did Google Maps remove the faces from their street view? Only public outrage? or was there a law behind?

[maxerickson]

I'd be pretty comfortable with something similar to the DMCA takedown procedure, where a person can certify that they appear in a photo and that they did not give permission to publicize the photo. It would be fine if photos taken in public were treated differently. I do wonder if 'outdoors' would have to be public, or if there would still be grey areas (I think it would be fine to err in favor of respecting the wishes of the person depicted, but lots of people are pretty set on public is public, never mind wild changes in our ability to create and distribute recordings).

That it would be inconvenient for big companies that host lots of photos doesn't really bother me any.

[drakeandrews]

It's considered general good behaviour to blur the faces of bystanders, license plates (and I know at least in the UK they attempted to algorithmically blur windows).

However, there are no laws involved (at least in the UK). The people involved are not the subject of the work nor do they have any reasonable expectation to privacy on the street. Windows were another issue and I do remember some outrage over it. Google said they were trying to blur it and people went "Okay" and then it died down.