Genuinely curious: what concrete negative consequences are there from appearing in the background of other people’s photos/videos, in a full face mask no less?
Is he afraid that someone will be able to identify him as engaging in a hobby that some people might be judgmental about, e.g. a potential employer finding the footage and concluding “this guy spends lots of time and money playing a children’s game; he’s clearly not a serious person.” That I can understand.
But it seems like his position is stronger than this:
>Publishing someone’s photo online, without their consent, without another strong justification, just because they happen to be in view of one’s camera lens, feels wrong to me
So essentially, it’s wrong to publish any photo that happens to include people in the background? If I take an artistic photo at an art museum [0] or a restaurant [1] or a streetscape [2] and there happen to be people in the background, what possible harm could come to the people incidentally captured?
You're looking for a generic reason, I think, and there isn't and doesn't need to be one other than "people can desire their privacy for various reasons"
Maybe publicizing where someone is every week lets criminals plan their crimes. Maybe it gives away someone's location to an abusive ex or family member or stalker. Maybe people just don't want Google and the like to have even more data about our whereabouts and actions and identity.
These are all nice concrete consequences, but I’m not sure having public images meaningfully exacerbates them.
>robbers
Why would a criminal take time to comb through random, anonymous, uncategorized images of people to ambiguously identify someone who might not be home (and might not even have a house worth breaking into), when it’s much easier to just stake out wealthy neighborhoods and definitively see who’s not home and who has unsecured valuables, as has been done for centuries?
>stalkers
So said stalker would have to run facial recognition software on every image on the internet to find the handful that might incidentally contain their victim? Someone that determined would just hire or use the methods of a PI, which have long been effective at finding people who don’t want to be found.
>Google et al.
The solution here is to regulate what Google et al. can do with your data, not regulate what people can post online.
>So said stalker would have to run facial recognition software on every image on the internet
This argument is so poorly formed I almost believe it's in bad faith.
Both you and I know that a stalker wouldn't do that. People tend to congregate their online behaviors in a very small circle of sites based upon their physical locations, I'm not going to index files in Japan to find someone in Iowa. Digital footprints are both large and small at the same time.
> when it’s much easier to just stake out wealthy neighborhoods and definitively see who’s not home and who has unsecured valuables
Because it's risky and time consuming to be there in person. In fact it's even easier to setup a camera in said neighborhoods and have software track users behavior then to sit around there yourself.
> So said stalker would have to run facial recognition software on every image on the internet to find the handful that might incidentally contain their victim?
Stalkers often have knowledge of the victim’s friends and associates and have no problem combing through their social media looking for photos.
> Someone that determined would just hire or use the methods of a PI, which have long been effective at finding people who don’t want to be found.
PIs will not do work for people without a legitimate purpose, as they could lose their license. Stalkers with ill intent will also be leaving a paper trail if they hire a PI. And non-PIs may be able to use some PI methods, but they won’t be able to access the full range of PI tools or PI relationships.
> So said stalker would have to run facial recognition software on every image on the internet to find the handful that might incidentally contain their victim
Or use an image search engine that does facial recognition. Already exist, and likely to become more common.
> Why would a criminal take time to comb through random, anonymous, uncategorized images of people to ambiguously identify someone who might not be home (and might not even have a house worth breaking into), when it’s much easier to just stake out wealthy neighborhoods and definitively see who’s not home and who has unsecured valuables, as has been done for centuries?
Knowing your target's movements and schedule has also been an integral part of crime since forever. Also, you are again focusing on the generic - the goal being hitting any wealthy target, not this particular target.
> So said stalker would have to run facial recognition software on every image on the internet to find the handful that might incidentally contain their victim? Someone that determined would just hire or use the methods of a PI, which have long been effective at finding people who don’t want to be found.
Maybe they know their target likes airsoft but, probably due to the stalking, has changed locations to try and get away. Looking at the few local airsoft places is probably way cheaper than hiring a PI. Can one easily hire a PI for stalking purposes, anyway? Seems like an industry that has some strong regulations but I don't really know.
Besides, you don't need to worry about things like a PI or finding random images if, for example, a friend or acquaintance in your group posts a lot. The stalker need only find that one person to keep an eye on their target - a very common tactic by abusers, by the by: being aware of your target's social circle and using it to keep tabs on them.
This also seems to focus on the physical aspect of it, as if getting attacked/kidnapped is the only possible result, but constantly getting messages like "Looks like you had fun at X" from an abuser can cause harm too.
> The solution here is to regulate what Google et al. can do with your data, not regulate what people can post online.
There are 2 separate issues. Should we regulate what people can post online? And should we expect people to respect our privacy, even if they're not legally required to? One is a legal question, the other is social/cultural.
> Genuinely curious: what concrete negative consequences are there from appearing in the background of other people’s photos/videos, in a full face mask no less?
How about if you're overweight, doing airsoft to try to get into shape, and bellyflop into some mud on video?
That's social media crack right there, boys and girls.
Can you understand why someone might not want that kind of thing posted?
It isn't necessarily about consequences. I don't want photos of me on the internet. I don't like the idea that other people get to do that without my consent.
I don't have any power to stop it. I am not even sure I should, or what limits it should have. But I don't think I should need to justify that as a preference.
what possible harm could come to the people incidentally captured?
That is not the point. If someone doesn't want to be in someone else's photos or videos without consent, it is their choice. It is their face afterall. It doesn't matter why. They do not owe an explanation.
The polite thing to do would be to blur other people's faces (or remove people altogether) before adding our photos to the gajillion others already floating around on the internet.
>>Publishing someone’s photo online, without their consent, without another strong justification, just because they happen to be in view of one’s camera lens, feels wrong to me
If you don't want someone to make a record of the photons that arrive at a particular place because those photons bounced off you, then don't let them go out into the world far beyond your private space.
Why are you trying to dehumanize the idea of taking a picture of someone and possibly posting it publicly by referring to it as photons? Yes we are all just atoms moving around in 3D space but it doesn't take away the fact that people should be allowed to exist outside their house without some random person recording them and possibly posting it to the internet. You don't care and that is totally fine but some people do.
I'm not dehumanizing it, I'm making it clear that photography is generally a passive activity. Where's the line between "don't record me" and "don't look at me"? If it's ok you look at you, but not record you, where's the line? Can someone use a telescope to look at you? Can a store have a camera and a live TV view of all the people who walk in? Can there be a live camera that captures the people on a sidewalk and display it on a giant billboard on the side of a building? If you're at a sporting event can they aim a camera at you in the crowd and put you on the jumbotron? These are all amplifications of visibility, which ones are allowed and which are not. And why should you be able to insist on the absolute bare minimum of noticeability when you are out in public?
How is it passive? You are literally choosing to use a camera by pointing it in a specific direction and press a button to make it record. The problem is how people who record videos of others are perfectly fine with it while other people might not be. It's not other people seeing me or noticing me that is the problem. It's random people I don't know recording me because I don't get to choose how the video/recording stored on their device will be seen or distributed in the future.
Businesses recording security footage is different because there is some type of social contract that they won't publicly release it. If I knew for example that the grocery store I shop at was posting security videos to youtube I would go spend money at another grocery store. I can choose not to go to a sporting event concert because I don't want to be on a jumbo tron. I have way to choose whether or not some random person will record me while I'm working out or taking my dog out.
Is he afraid that someone will be able to identify him as engaging in a hobby that some people might be judgmental about, e.g. a potential employer finding the footage and concluding “this guy spends lots of time and money playing a children’s game; he’s clearly not a serious person.” That I can understand.
But it seems like his position is stronger than this:
>Publishing someone’s photo online, without their consent, without another strong justification, just because they happen to be in view of one’s camera lens, feels wrong to me
So essentially, it’s wrong to publish any photo that happens to include people in the background? If I take an artistic photo at an art museum [0] or a restaurant [1] or a streetscape [2] and there happen to be people in the background, what possible harm could come to the people incidentally captured?
[0] https://500px.com/search?q=the%20Met&type=photos&sort=releva...
[1] https://500px.com/search?q=Busy%20restaurant&type=photos&sor...
[2] https://500px.com/search?q=Times%20Square%20&type=photos&sor...