Hacker News Reader

Comment by callmeed | Hacker News Reader

Stuff like this really annoys me–because I work in the photo industry and love to take pictures (especially in public). The privacy argument is a joke if you are in a public place. It only applies if you are in a place where you should expect privacy (i.e. in your home).

Anyone who keeps a camera with them often (or who is interested in this topic), should read the following:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-...

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-...

http://www.andrewkantor.com/ (check the PDF here)

http://www.rcfp.org/photoguide/

Keep in mind that there is a big difference between taking a picture and publishing a picture.

EDITED:

Here is another great, printable sheet you can keep with you: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

View on HN

>the privacy argument is a joke if you are in a public place

Surely not always a joke. If, for example, a couple is kissing in public then recording them against their will seems wrong to me. Whether it ought to be illegal is another question.

OTOH it seems to me that the actions of police ought to be regarded as public acts, and recording them in the public interest ought to be legal.

>Keep in mind that there is a big difference between taking a picture and publishing a picture

Yes, although the person being photographed doesn't know what the picture will be used for and so he may feel constrained nonetheless.

>> If, for example, a couple is kissing in public then recording them against their will seems wrong to me (although whether it ought to be illegal -- dunno)

(keep in mind, I'm mostly talking in the context of still photographs, not a/v)

I'm sure some parents feel the same about their children and celebrities feel the same about themselves. Unfortunately, once you step foot in a public place, you no longer have a * reasonable expectation of privacy*–regardless of who you are or what intimate act you may be participating in.

>> Yes, although the person being photographed doesn't know what the picture will be used for and so he may feel constrained nonetheless.

All the more reason for people to be educated and willing to educate others.

I've been accosted on more than one occasion simply for taking pictures in our downtown park–usually it's some hipster attempting to be impress his friends. If I'm in a good mood, I'll kindly explain my rights to him. If not, I'll just keep taking his picture while he talks to me.

Surely not always a joke. If, for example, a couple is kissing in public then recording them against their will seems wrong to me. Whether it ought to be illegal is another question.

I don't see why it seems wrong. They may not want you to record it, but if they are doing it in a public place they expect (or at least should expect) to be seen. Having it recorded is little different from having it seen except you now have a near-perfect copy to show others instead of having only the ability to discuss it.

It might to a degree be rude to record it, just as it would be rude to stare at them for prolonged periods as they did it, but that is very different than either morally or legally wrong.

Now if they are in somewhere that should be at least partially private (they're own home, a hotel room, etc), then recording is a very different story.

Photos are different than video, as there is no audio.

There are no statutes that I am aware of that prevent you from taking still pictures in open/public areas. There are certain grey areas around national monuments though.

> There are certain grey areas around national monuments though.

How so?

(And on a different note, is there a way to display text as "quoted" here on HN?)

(And on a different note, is there a way to display text as "quoted" here on HN?)

Surround it by asterisks, with no whitespace between the asterisk and the corpus.

http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc

I am a pro-hobbyist photog as well. I have heard stories of people being harassed in NYC for example for taking what would generally be considered "normal" photographs of buildings/bridges/monuments from either standard street-level, or in some cases slightly more artistic (but legal in the sense of not trespassing) vantage points.

From what I have seen, there is no true legal restriction from taking these photographs, but authorities either don't know this, or try to use intimidation tactics to discourage.

The "grey" area is that I don't know first-hand how all these cases have played out, and/or if there wasn't really some odd terrorist-area unconstitutional law that was being cited.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com