The sticky issue of consent in street photography

Re:The sticky issue of consent in street photography by dheera on Wednesday November 24, 2021 @09:05PM (#29337509)

> The key distinction is that the human eye and its storage system doesn't meaningfully support duplication and distribution of the picture.

That isn't necessarily true. Just because your eye doesn't doesn't mean mine doesn't. How do you know I wasn't born blind and retrofitted with a silicon eye that gives me both the ability to see and record/duplicate more easily than other humans?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The sticky issue of consent in street photography by Edman274 on Wednesday November 24, 2021 @11:16PM (#29338175)

This is a bad faith reply. Non-existent hypothetical devices are not worth considering when talking about the morality of something that someone does today.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The sticky issue of consent in street photography by shard on Monday November 29, 2021 @05:59PM (#29386453)

I saw this a while ago, Argus II implant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05ee61Bu-Ok

It exists, albeit only B&W and at a very low resolution. However as we all know, technology can advance very quickly, and high resolution cameras are not inconceivable for this application.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The sticky issue of consent in street photography by dheera on Thursday November 25, 2021 @03:06AM (#29339257)

I choose to frame my view of morality in terms of technological developments that are likely to happen in the next 100 years (approximately a human lifetime for anyone born today), not what exists today. Today is antiquated as soon as something is invented something tomorrow.

"Hypothetical" is an assumption. You don't know what I have, and what I'm experimenting with.

[ Parent | on HN ]