I live in a country where photographing people in public is highly restricted. The reason is that 99% of people cannot avoid public places in their day-to-day lives, therefore public places cannot be a free-for-all.
They can’t in those places with the restrictions you are familiar with and are subject to, but that is no argument against the norms of other places and the denizens thereof. I can, and do see public spaces as a free-for-all, and that is neither better nor worse, but simply the way we do things here.
If you don’t like it, it doesn’t affect you. Most folks are aware, and make a mental note of such things from a young age. If we don’t like it that way, we have avenues to change the way we relate to each other in public by changing the laws and regulations that govern public photography. That society hasn’t reached a consensus on this and other issues is fine. Variety is the spice of life, and the spice must flow.
The problem is that "public" 20 years ago (before cell phone cameras, photo rolls, social media, growth/engagement algorithms, attention economy, virality, etc) vs now just doesn't mean the same thing anymore.
There's a difference between "no expectation of privacy" and "no expectation of having every moment of your life in public be liable to be published".
And at that point, the only thing left is the "well if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't care if your life is published" type of logic, and I don't love that.
I think it's a mistake to cling to a definition of "public" that doesn't account for how much things have changed.
Edit: and I use "published" as a direct reference to the "publish" or "post" buttons on various social media apps.
In places where you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, you can generally be photographed. But there are significant limits to how such pictures can be published (including social media).
By the time the law, or the terms and conditions of social networks, catches up, the damage is already done.
The former was a relatively small event broadcast live. The latter was a huge protest involving more people than the populations of some small countries. However, their media footprint was very different.
The No Kings protest produced no iconic visuals and was rapidly forgotten by international media. It had considerably less staying power than, say, the arab spring. Arguably because there existed no compelling visuals. It might as well have been a small protest of 100k people for the footprint it occupies in international consciousness.
The Charlie Kirk funeral, on the other hand, produced half a dozen memorable images that circulated for weeks.
It bears thinking about.
And then there are the signal surveillance networks that are peppered around your environment as your phone shouts traceable signals to your surroundings.
(Heck, you can set up a a RPi with a few ESP32s hooked up to dump wifi probe frames, cross reference the networks phones scan for and create a map of where people come from by cross referencing wardriving data. Lots of ISPs make it easy by giving people wireless routers with unique network names. And from there you can figure out things like «someone living at address X is at location Y. People who live at X work for Z and location Y is the office of a competitor». And that’s just by collecting one kind of wifi frame and correlating a bunch of publicly available information)
Privacy is dead. Someone taking pictures hardly even registers.
Addressing nothing because everything can't be addressed isn't a great strategy for change.
Sure, I understand that most people are barely aware of the insane amounts of data various data brokers aggregate, curate and sell of ordinary people's highly sensitive data. But most of us are. Or should be. And many of us are also part of the problem.
I do think this should be addressed. Especially since it is hard to address and it is not going to get any easier. In a well functioning legal system, every single one of the large data brokers that trade in sensitive personal information should be in existential peril. And people associated with them should be at very real risk of ending up in prison.
It seems ... peculiar to argue about taking away rights that private citizens have had for more than a century and at the same time not do anything about, for instance, private parties raiding sensitive government data and essentially nobody caring or showing any willingness to do anything about it.
You are right in that we do have a "the ship has sailed" attitude. But rather than focus on fixing what is most important we'd rather risk infringing on the rights of private citizens further because that is "being seen as doing something".
(I'm not accusing you of thinking this -- I am just finishing that line of reasoning to show what absurd conclusions this might lead us to)
When it comes to following lines of reasoning to absurd conclusions though, in the other direction, don't we end up in a world where it is everyone's right (private or public for that matter) to surveil everyone at all times the moment they step outside?
Isn't that something you have an issue with? An extension of the existing problem with data brokers, including ones that record data from interactions on their private space (eg our access to their products in their stores, etc)?
You're definitely right that there are worse offenders out there than "randos taking pictures", but it doesn't have to be an either-or thing.
Plus, I'd suspect that almost anyone who thinks it's not great that every other person on the street can now record them and post it on social media for engagement also doesn't like the other bits of tracking and surveillance you bring up, so if anything, they are probably your overzealous allies.
Even published works didn't have the reach and accessibility they have today. Today even your random mobile phone snaps could make it onto newspaper front pages around the globe in a matter of hours -- even minutes. Or someone might be able to find them after doing a search even if they were published to what the creator thought was a limited audience.
So I think we have to be aware that although we, in most western countries, have had the right to take pictures of people in public spaces for a bit more than 100 years, some fundamental things have indeed changed. It isn't exactly the same thing anymore and we have to acknowledge that.
However, we also have to acknowledge that there are degrees when it comes to infringing on someone's privacy. Someone shooting pictures in the street doesn't immediately qualify as "surveillance". Yes, the picture may land online and yes, it may turn up when you perform searches. But I think calling it surveillance is bordering on arguing in bad faith.
Surveillance is surveillance.
If we allow the argument that all capture of images or video is surveillance to pass without drawing attention to the use of misleading and loaded wording, we might end up eroding practices that are extremely important. Imagine, for instance, how difficult news coverage of important events would be if we were to ban any and all filming or photographing of people in public spaces without their consent. ()
You might argue that this is taking things to an extreme, but it actually isn't. It is a problem we deal with already. Covering the actions of law enforcement has always been difficult, and just in the last few months in the US, it has gotten a lot worse. A good example is coverage of the Pentagon right now, where only those who have signed away their rights to truthfully cover what they see and hear have access.
Which means all of us are now less informed and less able to develop informed opinions and make informed choices.
Some might argue that "journalists" are a different "class of observer" that is to be afforded more freedom, but this gets us into even more trouble. Again, what happened at the Pentagon represents a very concrete example. You do not want there to be a special class of people who are specially licensed to observe and communicate "the truth" -- as that license can be used to dictate what "truth" they report.
() Filming or photographing newsworthy events isn't without its moral dilemmas. I used to photograph demonstrations because they provide opportunities for capturing visually interesting images of people. The more intense the demonstration, the more interesting images you could get. However, the more polarized and angry a society gets, and as the risk of government overreach increases, the more you run the risk of endangering people taking part in protests by taking their picture. The last few protests I've observed first hand (having my camera with me), I've actually not taken any pictures. Because I didn't feel it would be advisable to publish the images (so I might as well not take any). I'm probably not alone in this. Which is bad news both because we have to fear for people's security, but it also makes protests less effective.
Interestingly, the national broadcasting service in Norway chose to broadcast the Charlie Kirk funeral live. However, there was nearly no coverage of the "No Kings" protest that gathered 7 million people in the US. Most people here may have heard of it, many have not, and there exists exactly zero "iconic" defining images of it. Which means that it is almost as if it didn't happen. There are no memorable images of it in the public consciousness over here. Not one. Only bland pictures of crowds that fail to hold anyone's attention. There were at least half a dozen far more compelling pictures and clips of the Charlie Kirk funeral.
So on one hand you could argue that privacy was, in some sense, respected. On the other hand you could also argue that as an instance of political speech, it was far less effective than one would have assumed when 7 million people take to the streets.
Presupposing that some strategies for change are less suitable than others is no argument against the status quo, either. Sometimes the way things are is just the way folks in a given time and place do things, and is simply contingent as much as it’s worthwhile.
When the going gets tough, the tough get going. If you don’t like the way things are done here, you either care to make a change, including hearts and minds, or you don’t. If you aren’t from here, that might be an uphill battle, perhaps even both ways: coming and going.
It’s a kind of double standard to judge folks for their customs without wanting to do the work to disabuse them of their notions, lest they warn you not to let the door hit you on your way out, especially after it was opened unto you in the first place. Wanting to have it both ways is a sort of special pleading.
I think it’s a mistake for others in different jurisdictions to tell those subject to those norms how they ought to live.
The times may have changed, and we didn’t start the fire. We could put it out if we wanted, or if the lick of the flames brought us undue harm. Perhaps most folks just don’t want to change as much as the times, and that’s okay. The future is not yet written, and justice is a living thing. We can always go a different way if the future we arrive upon necessitates it.
I don’t mind if we have to change, but I do admire the view. The camera can only capture what’s inside the frame, and it would be a shame to stop living, and the greater loss would be to give up on life in pursuit of capturing a fleeting moment. I think for many, like me, who admire the hobby and have a love of photography as an art form, it’s akin to capturing lightning in a bottle. If it were outlawed or constrained, a true loss to society would occur, as that would be a material change in living conditions. Others are free to disagree, and I wouldn’t find fault with them for simply doing so.
When it comes to curtailing my rights to preserve history and my place in it, I don’t think I’m the one who is entitled, but those who would prevent me from freely expressing myself through my chosen medium. If you see something, you ought be free to say something or remain silent. Forestalling my speech is not for you to say. Freedom to photograph is a free speech issue, to my view.
I also agree that freedom to photograph is a free speech issue. I just happen to think the ability to live your life without having it being recorded everywhere is also a freedom issue.
I think it's a challenge for us to solve and I don't pretend to have a solution. I just don't agree with a "change nothing" stance on grounds of "no expectation of privacy" because I think things have changed to a point that it needs to be addressed.
Side note: > I think it’s a mistake for others in different jurisdictions to tell those subject to those norms how they ought to live.
If that's directed at me, then I think you're reading something in my comment that I haven't expressed.
If you felt that I directed my comments at you, I apologize; I almost certainly wasn’t. If anything, I am directing them at myself, as an affirmation of what I believe and why. Freedom of expression is one of the few issues that I will take a principled stance on, and if you feel that I was directing my comment at you, I don’t mean to, though you are free to express whatever you feel led to if you feel that I have given you short shrift or unalloyed fire, friendly or otherwise.
I’ve known deaf people who love going to concerts. They perceive the thrumming of the bass and the stomp of the crowd. They see the smiles and throw up their hands, and deaf folks are able to carry on a conversation by signing better than most folks who are hearing, especially when the music is turned up to 11.
I’m more concerned with what might happen to assistive technologies meant to be used in public by low-vision and (legally or fully) blind users if public photography bans are passed than I am about any other passing concerns about being photographed in public, to be honest.
Jurisprudence in my country can’t preempt legal activities because they might lead to wrongdoing in the future. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don’t know what you think folks are likely to do, but there are likely already laws against doing most things you would take umbrage with.
There’s no need to winnow our rights out of concern for your “mights.”
Which are here too.
People can complain about whatever they want. It’s entirely legal to have an opinion, since you seem so preoccupied with laws.
You can certainly photograph street scenes without being a rude cunt.
I can’t top that as a “how do you do,” and yet, it’s both of our birthright to be “a rude cunt” or worse, within the bounds of the law.
I was getting enduly riled up over anonymous internet comments and was going to say something much more obnoxious, but not everyone gets Australian humour so I figured I’d tone it down.
If I saw you take an unasked photo of our blind friend here, I’d let them know so they’d have an opportunity to approach you and ask you to deleted it, if they happen to feel motivated to do so, and offer to take care of it myself ;)
[0] (For those who haven't seen The Castle (1997), you really owe it to the Australians in your life to make an appointment with yourself to do so at your earliest convenience. Here's the scene from the film in question which originated one of my favorite bits of Aussie slang:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCtMTbKX6_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Castle_(1997_Australian_fi... )
—-
I’m in to that! It’d be a photo of me falling flat on my face / generally making a fool of myself. Perfect pool room photo.
Have a lovely day.
Public photography is cultural preservation and anthropological ethnography. Asking folks to stop is selfish. You are free to have an opinion that differs, and your jurisdiction may even forbid public photography, but in those places I’m familiar with, street photography is as legitimate an art as music played for free on the sidewalk. I wouldn’t argue against public concerts if I were deaf, as it doesn’t concern me, because it isn’t for me, were I unhearing, and the gathering that such public displays engender benefits one and all, regardless of differences of senses or sensibilities amongst those who choose to freely associate.
> In my perfect world, taking pictures of strangers without their consent should be illegal.
Capturing an image of another without their consent is a bit more nuanced, and I would agree that one is entitled to decide how they are portrayed to a degree, but public spaces aren’t considered private by virtue of them being shared and nonexclusive. All the same, though we may disagree, you have given me some food for thought. I appreciate your unique perspective on this issue, and I thank you sincerely for sharing your point of view.