Hacker News Reader

Comment by QuantumRoar | Hacker News Reader

It really annoys me that I'm probably on more photos by accident than on purpose. Or someone takes a picture, I'm in the background and I just see the flash as if it was right in my face and I must wonder how stupid my face must have looked.

This is especially frustrating when you are out with friends and want to have a good time. A few years ago, you could still dress up as a flamingo and get drunk. Everybody would have a good laugh, enjoy themselves, and the stories would have been hilarious. But nowadays, you'd end up on at least dozens of Facebooks and Instagrams and it might end up being the first picture coming up when someone searches your name.

I would very much like the option to be unphotographable.

View on HN

> I would very much like the option to be unphotographable.

Too bad, I say. Because when you are in a public place, you cannot expect privacy. I understand how you feel and why, but there is simply no way of doing this without curtailing somebody else's (legitimate) freedom.

I do not expect privacy in a public place. But I do expect that not everything I do is recorded and then associated with my name on the Internet. But this is exactly the direction smartphones have taken us.

I don't know if you have the same feeling but I do notice a chilling effect in how I behave when I see that someone has their phone out and its camera is pointed approximately in my direction (although they might be checking messages).

Other countries see that differently. The right to one own's picture exists in various jurisdictions, requiring others to either acquire your consent or obscure faces.

Also, you can still have reasonable expectations of privacy in public locations, such as your words not being recorded without your consent.

Or a public bathroom, for example.

> Because when you are in a public place, you cannot expect privacy.

Being in a public place does not necessarrily mean being public.

If you own the rights to your own data you can prevent that data from being made public (or used in other ways). A nation state can very well require that social media sites honor this if they want to operate in that country. Search engines can also be forced to delete data etc.

Granted I doubt it's practically enforceable in all cases but it's at least theoretically possible. It would be cool if such a button could be detected and people wearing it would get blurred by the photo-software of cell phones automatically.

> Because when you are in a public place, you cannot expect privacy.

There's a difference though, between expecting the public to witness one's own actions in that very moment, and having everyone, at any time, forever, being able to replay a recording of that moment.

The latter is something only public figures, and only in their public role, should have to expect.

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.

>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.

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.

Most bars aren't public spaces.

Public as in "anyone can come in and see you", not as in "belonging to the state".

You don't have a right to take pictures granted anywhere that you can walk into. That makes even less sense than the way I interpreted it.

>Too bad, I say. Because when you are in a public place, you cannot expect privacy.

You may not have a right to privacy, but you should have a right to non-celebrity.

Going out in public does not constitute permission to become a figure of mockery on youtube. Requiring everyone to wear their PR-face in public in case they get recorded for all time and broadcast to every person on the planet is dystopic.

You totally have the right to take a photo of me, store it on your hard drive and look at it occasionally. Uploading it to reddit might be a different case.

>Too bad, I say. Because when you are in a public place, you cannot expect privacy.

Says who?

We had quite a lot of privacy in public spaces before everybody and his dog yielded a cameraphone.

Privacy is not a binary ("oh, since you can be seen by people passing by in public anyway, it means you don't have any privacy") -- it's a spectrum. You could still be OK with people seeing you, but not with being photographed AND tagged automatically (e.g. with timestamp and GPS from a friend's phone) AND posted online AND indexed and available for anybody in the world to search for your name/pictures in perpetuity...

The assertion that privacy is binary is primarily an American legal fiction that the Government and media managed to sell to the people as the only way to view the privacy argument.

Those kind of bizarro assumptions in American law when the spirit of the law is blatantly obvious always amuse me...

E.g. whether it's OK for the government to check your email if you already give it to an email provider vs snail mail, and such BS. Or whether idiots with gun fetishes for "protecting their property" are what was meant by "well armed militias"...

Those kind of bizarro "blatantly obvious" comments always amuse me...

Get real. Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws has never been "blatantly obvious". Your viewpoint is yours and your bias is confirming it.

>Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws has never been "blatantly obvious".

Well, it has always been subject to the political pressure from various lobbies and interests...

Judges can write whole treatises with delicate legal interpretations to justify their alliances, government pressure and/or under the table money.

Kind of like medieval religious scholars could write treatises on how many angels fit on the head of a pin -- it pays well and furthers their friends cause.

Between those issues, the death penalty, three strikes laws, and such -- not to mention widespread litigation mania--, the legal code there is kind of the joke in the western world.

1) There is nothing bizarro about the idea that something isn't "private" if you share it with strangers at BigWebCo. You mah. It agree with it but it's a reasonable interpretation.

2) The 2nd amendment doesn't say you have the right to join a militia. It protects the right to bear arms. I assume you wouldn't agree with taking a similarly narrow approach to the right to free speech, for example.

If by a 5-4 decision just a couple years ago you mean "2A protects the right to bear arms", sure.

Want to bet that in 20 years, we refine that to "strict scrutiny applies only to to the individual right to bear the specific kinds of arms used in a well-regulated militia, and rational basis to all other arms"?

There are some devices that can help you.

http://petapixel.com/2016/07/01/anti-paparazzi-scarf-makes-f...

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.obe...

I've often wondered if it would be possible to wear something that would prevent your face from showing up in a photo, unless you wanted it.

Something outside the visible spectrum which would cause a anomoly on the pixels on the CMOS sensor.

Any thoughts?

Cameras sense the visible spectrum, so unless your face is invisible to people's eyes, it'll be visible in a photo.

There are some cheeky ways to defeat flash photography, but flash photos are pretty rare.

Camera's do pick up infrared. Look at the infrared LED on a remote control (while pressing a button) through your phone camera.

Incidentally, "night vision" security cameras exploit this by clustering infared LED's around the lens.

So, you could have some kind of head band that shines LED light down over your face I guess!

Or you could spray your face with this - https://www.phantomplate.com/

That would take care of flash photography at least.

There's https://cvdazzle.com/, but it's against facial recognition, not the photo itself.

It'd be far easier, cheaper, and less time consuming to just put a bag over your head.

I believe that is an amazing idea and something that I would love to use...

No idea on the technical side thought...

You mean something like a camera that detects phones and then emits a laser beam onto their sensor?

I usually wear a pantyhose over my head in public spaces. Also makes it possible to withdraw money from any bank without having it deducted from your account.

I do not know how effective is it, but highly reflective clothes could help too:

https://www.wired.com/2015/02/paparazzi-proof-clothing-thats...

https://theishu.com/ is a scarf designed for this purpose.

This badge is a step in the right direction. Those products linked above looks like it rely on flashes. If someone invents something that will distort the face of the wearer on all kinds of mobile phone photos, they will get rich. Everyone is walking around with a great camera and taking photos like there is no tomorrow. But not everyone want to be on your insta (or whatever) feed.

I remember a while back seeing a POC where someone mounted high(ish) powered IR LEDs onto glasses, overexposing CCTV cameras/obscuring your face.

Not sure if would work for regular cameras though (which may well be partly shielded from IR), I think CCTV cameras are often sensitive to IR so that they can work at night (by shining an IR light to illuminate an area).

In many jurisdictions in the US it is a felony to wear a mask in public.

First of, REALLY?? In the US? That surprises me.

However, what defines a "mask"? If this is a technical gadget that prevents a photo, is it a mask? Real life people can see you, just not cameras (hopefully)

How would this even be possible, though?

A few months ago I had an old friend joke to me that she knew that I had attended a youth sporting event with my son. I thought, 'That's creepy - how did she even know that? She lives in a different state than me, and the event was far from both of our homes.' So, I asked her, and she sent me a photo that was taken and posted by one of her other friends (whom I did not know). Sure enough, way in the back and across the field was my face, tiny and only recognizable with significant zoom.

So, given that high resolution cameras are able to record with such detail and capture large volumes of space, how would one even go about restricting their use?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com