We're Americans. If we practiced DBAD, pretty much everything would be different.
Of all our American flaws, "It's not illegal for me to be a dick and therefore I am going to be on" is perhaps the one we're proudest of. (Followed, perhaps, by "It's illegal for me to be a dick but you can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and that's as good as legal" and "It's illegal for me to be a dick but nobody is going to bother prosecuting therefore it's as good as legal.")
It would be great if we all practiced Don't Be A Dick. But for those who are most harmed by people being dicks, we need to figure out ways to protect them legally, because otherwise people will be a dick to them as hard as they possibly can. And every time you try, people will say "Nobody is being a dick to me therefore nobody needs to be protected."
> Sure, it’s legal to film people in public in the US without their consent. But it’s also shitty.
I don’t think that it’s always shitty to film people in public without their consent. This is not a black and white issue.
Do you feel that consent should be obtained from everyone who is visible in any video taken outdoors, regardless of whether those people are the intended subject of the video? Do you have a consent problem with surveillance videos? How about videos captured on car dash cameras?
Let’s say you are at a tourist attraction, capturing a video of the attraction. Another visitor asks that you stop filming, because they don’t want to be in your video. Dickish to continue? I’m not so sure.
It’s easy to say “don’t be a dick,” but that statement sidesteps the reality that reasonable people can (and do) disagree about what that means.
It's interesting as this is one area where Japanese law is significantly different from American law. It's really easy to sue people in Japan and win for people using your image without your permission. This is why you see so many videos from Japan when news agencies film on the streets they'll blur people's faces.
Since just before 2016 and enforced by the pandemic, it's pretty obvious if you are going through life relying on people not to take advantage of the fact that "being a dick" is a loophole while everyone else is polite or obeys the law, you are going to get run over or killed.
When I worked in film/tv production we were perpetually getting signed releases from people who were in the shot. Is this just not a thing now? Or is the downside so low that nobody cares?
The downside is proportional to pocket size. If you’re a rando Tik Toker or YouTuber, you have nothing to take (or so little, you can round down to zero). A production company has assets or capitalization at risk, hence the legal dance around releases.
Signing the releases isn't in the videos you make right? Institutional knowledge isn't transferred to people on tiktok. They replicate what they see, which is the walking up to people part. All the stuff behind the scenes is only known by people working in the industry.
The legal situation is different if the intended use of the footage is commercial (film/tv in your case) or not. Getting releases is still very much a thing in all the shoots I've been on recently.
Did the release signing come after the intrusiveness? Or do all the “man on the street” segments feature people who were asked off-camera for permission?
It's my understanding that tv and film people do the signed releases because they don't want to be sued, not because they necessarily wouldn't eventually win an expensive legal battle if they were sued.
I've watched some Japanese video creators on YouTube and so often when they film streets they frame their shot so as to cut off the faces of those in public (whether by tilting the camera, or shooting a crowd where everyone is walking away). It's so polite, so considerate <3
> “It isn’t a criminal offense to photograph people’s faces in public, but it can be a civil offense if the person who has been photographed finds their likeness published anywhere. They can make a case against the photographer on the grounds of breach of privacy,” says Tia. “The threat of being identified in a creative’s work and suffering consequences for it is all the victim needs to prove in court.”
> That’s why on most Japanese blogs, YouTube videos, and television programs, the faces of bystanders are blurred, an arduous and artistically painful process for any passionate creative. Tia says it best: “As an artist, mosaics and bars over the face can be such an ugly mark on one’s work.”
There are quite a few east Asian students in the city where I live, and especially the girls like to do photo shoots around town. They go to lengths to get shots without other people in, but I always got the impression they're doing it for aesthetics primarily above consideration for others
I'm not sure what it's called, but I've seen a product which is a database of the time/location of US car license plate sightings. As I understand it, these are OCR'd from a combination of private, and public footage. I wonder if something similar exists for faces, and if some company is performing facial recognition on publicly uploaded footage. It sounds quite paranoid, however we know for a fact that such technology exists, and that there's a motivation for it.
I don't _think_ yet, publicly -- as far as time/location of sighting records. I would assume that national security police forces have it though... perhaps still secretly in the US? It is known that Chinese security police have it.
But facial recognition on public data, yes, there are commercial facial recognition databases, but i dont' think they (yet?) have timestamped geocoded sightings.
> Australia and U.S.-based face biometrics provider VerifyFaces has unveiled its consumer-facing facial recognition service which can be used for background checks. Unlike image-only searches such as PimEyes, VerifyFaces combines facial recognition and text searches.
> From $11, individual users can conduct a search on the company’s website in four ways: by photo or video, name and birthday, phone number, and home address.
Here is a Vice article [1] on how the repo industry leverages a private database from ALPR [2] cameras mounted on cars, businesses, etc. It tracks everyone, not just those delinquent on their payments.
Unless laws are passed to make filming others in public, this is unlikely to ever stop. Chances are, such laws will not get passed as it will intrude on civil liberties and free expression of many. I also recommend against swatting away, as the author in the Verge concludes he/she will do, at someone's phone if they don't consent to being recorded. You run the risk of breaking someone's phone that way, giving potential rise to increased conflict or a small claims suit. Best response is to walk away or ignore.
That's a First Amendment issue in the US. What California does is to prohibit commercialization of the result without payment, which is constitutionally OK.
They're sticking objects into your personal space without consent, possibly constituting harassment or invasion of privacy/eavesdropping in some jurisdictions. I highly doubt the court costs for 99% of their sweatshop-made electronics are worth the hassle, including convincing a jury. I'm not saying you should grab their stuff and stomp it into the dirt, but a swat isn't gonna hurt these clowns.
If it’s brought by someone who makes a living by being obnoxious harassing private citizens in public, how much sympathy would that get from the judge?
If you don't have my consent then at the very least blur my features. I remember wearing Google Glass in Germany and I was looked at in fear. Since, they have enacted stricter privacy laws. We should look at it them as an example much like the world looks at the US for freedom related issues. One example in Germany is that suspects of a crime are not identified and the "perp walk" may be filmed and shown on the media but it is with blurred features. Freedom and privacy must be balanced.
It's also time to take down the satellites. The planned low orbit constellations leave no space on earth for people to hide or be free. National security or not, i truly hope there is a space war that will render the orbital space a dangerous zone for any army to operate. I'm fine with communication through terrestial cables only.
This is a really interesting take that I've started thinking more about recently. On one hand, the data collected by new satellites has been groundbreaking for many industries, but on the other it feels a bit intrusive.
I've worked on mapping projects that benefitted from ~3in resolution aerial imagery. When you study images with that level of detail, it's amazing what you can learn about an area. But having that amount of data collected on a regular basis would surely raise privacy concerns among citizens and governments alike.
Is it legal to use a hypothetical device to point a low powered laser at those cameras to wash out the images? I don't think so, but I'm curious as to what laws this would break.
> TikTok’s For You page has probably served you up a version of this kind of thing — the world first met Corn Kid
The world didn't meet 'Corn Kid', whatever that is, the Venn diagram circle that is TikTok users may have.
The intersection with the circle that is 'people who think this behaviour is bizarre and vile' is small, but those in it should take comfort in the fact that that second circle is very large, and the first probably a lot smaller, perhaps a lot more ephemeral, than they may think.
I fear public sentiment against filming will result in average people being unable to film while government and big business continue to quietly film en masse.
We should normalize wearing small, flashing led diodes to break camera shots, and adversarial clothing to defeat facial recognition and similar technologies.
> In the case of random TikTok creators, it’s clear the level of consent and notice runs the gamut.
I am reading this like this: When Verge is doing this, it is obviously legit and obviously not when it’s Tiktokers. Without backing this with any data.
[+] [-] borbulon|3 years ago|reply
Sure, it’s legal to film people in public in the US without their consent. But it’s also shitty. Those two things can both be true.
Maybe we might all be better off practicing DBAD: Don’t Be A Dick.
[+] [-] jfengel|3 years ago|reply
Of all our American flaws, "It's not illegal for me to be a dick and therefore I am going to be on" is perhaps the one we're proudest of. (Followed, perhaps, by "It's illegal for me to be a dick but you can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and that's as good as legal" and "It's illegal for me to be a dick but nobody is going to bother prosecuting therefore it's as good as legal.")
It would be great if we all practiced Don't Be A Dick. But for those who are most harmed by people being dicks, we need to figure out ways to protect them legally, because otherwise people will be a dick to them as hard as they possibly can. And every time you try, people will say "Nobody is being a dick to me therefore nobody needs to be protected."
[+] [-] trogdor|3 years ago|reply
I don’t think that it’s always shitty to film people in public without their consent. This is not a black and white issue.
Do you feel that consent should be obtained from everyone who is visible in any video taken outdoors, regardless of whether those people are the intended subject of the video? Do you have a consent problem with surveillance videos? How about videos captured on car dash cameras?
Let’s say you are at a tourist attraction, capturing a video of the attraction. Another visitor asks that you stop filming, because they don’t want to be in your video. Dickish to continue? I’m not so sure.
It’s easy to say “don’t be a dick,” but that statement sidesteps the reality that reasonable people can (and do) disagree about what that means.
[+] [-] lupex|3 years ago|reply
Sometimes however pushing the boundary causes positive change.
I am a photography enthusiast and a lot of very impactful if not world-changing photography in the past has been called unethical in their times.
Some examples are Robert Frank's "The Americans" (https://www.lensculture.com/articles/robert-frank-the-americ... https://www.nga.gov/features/robert-frank/the-americans-1955...), Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_Mother)" and Steve McCurry's "Afghan girl" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Girl) photos. All received harsh criticism, but also raised awareness of issues in transformative ways.
[+] [-] mlindner|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jamesgreenleaf|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] defaultcompany|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] habitue|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdorazio|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Waterluvian|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] staticman2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yboris|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|3 years ago|reply
> “It isn’t a criminal offense to photograph people’s faces in public, but it can be a civil offense if the person who has been photographed finds their likeness published anywhere. They can make a case against the photographer on the grounds of breach of privacy,” says Tia. “The threat of being identified in a creative’s work and suffering consequences for it is all the victim needs to prove in court.”
> That’s why on most Japanese blogs, YouTube videos, and television programs, the faces of bystanders are blurred, an arduous and artistically painful process for any passionate creative. Tia says it best: “As an artist, mosaics and bars over the face can be such an ugly mark on one’s work.”
[+] [-] joe__f|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stoppingin|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrochkind1|3 years ago|reply
But facial recognition on public data, yes, there are commercial facial recognition databases, but i dont' think they (yet?) have timestamped geocoded sightings.
> Australia and U.S.-based face biometrics provider VerifyFaces has unveiled its consumer-facing facial recognition service which can be used for background checks. Unlike image-only searches such as PimEyes, VerifyFaces combines facial recognition and text searches.
> From $11, individual users can conduct a search on the company’s website in four ways: by photo or video, name and birthday, phone number, and home address.
https://www.biometricupdate.com/202212/verifyfaces-unveils-f...
[+] [-] TecoAndJix|3 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/ne879z/i-tracked-someone-wit... [2] https://drndata.com/repossession/
[+] [-] RhodesianHunter|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zx8080|3 years ago|reply
https://www.foxnews.com/auto/tesla-facial-recognition-camera...
[+] [-] Nextgrid|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fullsend|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nerdponx|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snowpid|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martin1975|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] standardUser|3 years ago|reply
I think this is a good take, but I'd suggest the best response is to address the human being that is addressing you and say "no thanks".
[+] [-] DoreenMichele|3 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law
See also:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WalkableStreets/comments/u9jonf/for...
Edit: this may also be useful:
https://photographybay.com/photography-laws/
[+] [-] Animats|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lr4444lr|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] balls187|3 years ago|reply
If it’s brought by someone who makes a living by being obnoxious harassing private citizens in public, how much sympathy would that get from the judge?
[+] [-] Ataraxic|3 years ago|reply
It at one time criticizes the surveillance state and then also tries to connect it to the "man on the street" format.
Seems simply like a compilation of complaints by someone who doesn't like to be filmed in public.
[+] [-] tinyspacewizard|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|3 years ago|reply
[1] https://california.public.law/codes/ca_civ_code_section_3344
[+] [-] SethMurphy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seydor|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uneekname|3 years ago|reply
I've worked on mapping projects that benefitted from ~3in resolution aerial imagery. When you study images with that level of detail, it's amazing what you can learn about an area. But having that amount of data collected on a regular basis would surely raise privacy concerns among citizens and governments alike.
[+] [-] alwayslikethis|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xpe|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OJFord|3 years ago|reply
The world didn't meet 'Corn Kid', whatever that is, the Venn diagram circle that is TikTok users may have.
The intersection with the circle that is 'people who think this behaviour is bizarre and vile' is small, but those in it should take comfort in the fact that that second circle is very large, and the first probably a lot smaller, perhaps a lot more ephemeral, than they may think.
[+] [-] Buttons840|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rkagerer|3 years ago|reply
Else what's the point of Hollywood studios being so laser-eyed about making sure everyone signs releases?
[+] [-] el_don_almighty|3 years ago|reply
Where are the real tech solutions?
The autofocus jammers?
The ultrasonic microphone overdrive scramblers?
The infrared iris scramblers?
When did we lose control over the space around us?
Take back our personal space!
[+] [-] alwayslikethis|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uconnectlol|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hartator|3 years ago|reply
I am reading this like this: When Verge is doing this, it is obviously legit and obviously not when it’s Tiktokers. Without backing this with any data.
[+] [-] starwind|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|3 years ago|reply
Where is the video? At least provide a link.
[+] [-] sshine|3 years ago|reply
I was eating and had my mouth full. So I just stared the main content creator in the eyes and preserved the awkward silence.
Kids don’t know how to deal with that. He ended up apologising, saying he’ll delete the thing, and walked away before I had finished chewing. :-)