I'm actually not sure that reflects reality. Many of the concepts behind a lot of privacy stuff comes from a time and mindset when a camera was a unique device to carry around. Nowadays just about everything can have a camera slapped into it, and the reality is that the number of pictures being taken in any public place at any given time is far greater than it historically has been.

As much as I too dislike having my picture taken without consent, the reality of even small towns is that it's probable every person you pass has a camera, and pictures are plentiful as a result. Incidental pictures, pictures of an awkward moment or accident, or just something funny I think have to be expected more, if not by people actively photographing these with their phones/tablets, then passively by accidental photos and by monitoring systems.

I don't know if there is a good balance between the two since there's nothing inherently wrong about just taking a picture of your surroundings in a public place - the people there are part of what make the photo. To use an over-used expression, pin-hole sized cameras on phones were just opening pandora's box, and we can't really close that anymore. More than likely, the result of this will be photography obscuring clothing, styles, and technology, some of which others have already posted.

The technicals are of secondary importance, IMO. Privacy expections are something a society can regulate through laws. That sure doesn't prevent pin-hole cameras etc., but it makes using them without consent illegal.

German law for example explicitly works like this, the stated reason being the avoidance of chilling effects that would otherwise harm democratic participation.

I do agree in general that regulation will both help and is necessary here, but part of what I'm saying is that people are using cameras much differently than they have historically; no one is forcing people to take thousands of pictures a day for various social media just like Kodak wasn't forcing families to have Kodak Moments developed. It may be a result of advertising, but it's part of what we're doing now. And right now, what they're doing isn't really illegal. It's not desired by many, but it's also desired by many as well.

With US law anyways, I've not exactly been sure how remediation would work in an instance where you challenged for control and ownership of your likeness in a case like this. (e.g., a silly picture from a barwhere someone was dancing on the counter to Louie Louie or something). Once it's online, it's copied and repasted automatically by bots countless times as soon as it becomes scrapable - who is actually culpable during this?

Can you elaborate on what the German law actually states and does? This isn't challenging the notion or intent behind the German law, I just don't know how it works and would be curious to know specifically what's addressed and how the German courts have handled it.

German law essentially establishes a citizen's right to deny publication of an image/recording etc. if that citizen is depicted recognizably.

Exemptions are provided for cases like you snapping an image of a building or a group of your friends while I am just passing by (i.e. I am just incidentally part of the picture), or police mug shots.

I, too, am seeing that technological developments change our assumptions of privacy and socially acceptable behaviour, BTW. I just wanted to point out that we as a society can also choose to prevent unwanted consequences if we deem them unacceptable.

>I'm actually not sure that reflects reality. Many of the concepts behind a lot of privacy stuff comes from a time and mindset when a camera was a unique device to carry around.

Maybe social norms should be shaped around what people actually want, rather than what some new or old technology dictates as its default option?

One thing people want is to be able to carry camera phones and take pictures of their surroundings.

Is it what people really want, or just something that was made easy by latest tech and everyone jumping on it as a fad? You think we'll be snapping constantly and adding retro filters in 2025?

And even if that's so, do they also want to have those photos tagged, their friends face-recognized, and everything ending up searchable online?

Looks more like what Google, FB etc wants -- to collect even more data for ads and stuff.

I think the empirical evidence is quite clear that people want to have cameras and use them to take photos of their surroundings. They've been doing it for over a hundred years (Kodak founded in 1888), since well before they could add retro filters to those photos. Retro filters may or may not be a fad, but camera phones are not.

>They've been doing it for over a hundred years (Kodak founded in 1888), since well before they could add retro filters to those photos.

Not in any significant numbers, and mainly when being tourists.

Sure. People have been doing something for a hundred years, and they do it more now that it's easier, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll keep doing it at the increased rate.

But I think we're at the point where if you say "social norms should should be shaped around what people actually want", the onus is on you to show that people don't "actually want" to have cameras and use them.

Do people want to actually include others who don't want to be photographed in their photos, or do they just not want to ask everyone they photograph whether they should be permitted to?

I think that partly depends on the alternative. If it's a choice between "take photos including people who don't want to be photographed" and "don't take photos", I think a lot of people will take the first. If there's an option of "take photos, and people who don't want to be photographed can bugger off, just don't inconvenience me", I think a lot of people will happily take that one.