Hacker News Reader

Comment by anigbrowl | Hacker News Reader

The same people seriously discuss if it is ok for photographer standing openly in the street to take some pictures?

I should check the dictionary for definition of insanity because it can help to describe the situation.

You could consider the possibility that debates over this are a proxy issue for discomfort with surveillance in general, as a camera with a person behind it is easier to talk about than a camera erected and operated by some anonymous corporation or government department. Meeting people where they are to consider the issue from their perspective is often more effective than performative rudeness.

View on HN

From the article,

> The people who get the most worked up over the ethics of certain images are NOT themselves the subjects of the photo.

This is outrage culture.

People want to be angry. Here's something more for them to dogpile onto. Delivered by the Internet and amplified by engagement and sentiment detection algorithms.

We're fucking animals screaming about events we never witness, experiences we never feel, and people we never meet. We need to be angry to satisfy all of the issues and perceived lack of power in our own lives.

I feel very strongly about this because facebook is trying to get everyone to wear sunglasses that can surreptitiously put my picture online and TFA is trying to tell everyone that it's fine. I'm not in any art galleries TFA is talking about, sure, and you're telling me that means I can't speak up? Or that commenting means I'm a "fucking animal?"

Facebook's push is the least of your concerns, honestly. Mass-surveillance is an industry-wide effort, driven by government pressure.

Sure. I hate that too and don't want it to be normalized. FB is just an example.

>You could consider the possibility that debates over this are a proxy issue for discomfort with surveillance in general

So you suggest to support avoiding real issue of surveillance and support redirection of concerns toward those who has nothing to do with it because for people it is easier? This is reminds me the attitude with which Jewish people in Nazi Germany where claimed to be the source of all problems.

I was literally faced questioning attempts with threats in the public street just because I was making test shots directed toward the bush and AWAY from any people or any private property. Talk to me about 'performative rudeness'...

Once I was questioned for making photo of parked old motorcycle. I had telephoto lens and had to take my distance from the motorcycle coming close to the the few stairs of some building directing my camera AWAY from that building staying in public street.

Turned out those stairs were leading to the backdoor of some restaurant where some local TV stars happens to be celebrating something in that very day. Of course I had no idea about any of that.

One of the tv stars was smoking outside and was very concerned and ready to attack me with security of the restaurant even though I have never directed camera toward him. He was attempting to question me aggressively while I was trying to be nice with him.

It was very hard for this local star to believe that I with my serious equipment was interested more in some old parked motorcycle rather then in His majesty amazing Him who I failed to recognize by the way because I simply did not watch TV at all for some years already. Now I regret that I was too nice with such bright individual.

Again talk to me about 'performative rudeness'...

Many people went far beyond 'performative rudeness' toward photographers. They treat photographers as criminals just in case and do not hold themselves from aggression quesioning attempts and yet you prefer/propose to discuss my 'performative rudeness' for paying attention to some obvious facts rather then discussing their attitude and the real issue of surveillance?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com