Think bigger - public spaces, streets, in general. Would be nice to solve this.
This discussion isn't about what's polite.
It's about what you think ought to be against the law. And being fined or thrown in jail if you break the law.
You can wear a lanyard today!
It seems like you believe that if the government passed a law then it will have meaning in society? It's still as meaningless as if you just wore one today.
What happens then?
Is that what you want? For innocent photography in public to be essentially outlawed?
And if you might need to make the photo public, you could blur the faces.
That's not a world I would want to live in, and I guess I'm thankful most other people don't either.
The ability to photograph is important for accountability and truth in a democracy, it's important to families wanting to document and share their trips easily, and it's important for art, among many other things. Fundamentally, it feels like a kind of freedom to me.
But it's interesting to see there are people who disagree.
What if you're in the photo? What if you're doing something newsworthy? Or what if you're right behind the person doing something newsworthy?
Blur that region before posting it with an algorithm that can't be reversed. The camera app could even do this automatically.
> What if you're doing something newsworthy?
Every good rule has some exceptions.
If they want to do it voluntarily then great. But making it criminal if you don't -- I don't understand that.
You’re just making an argument for inconveniencing others out of laziness — but trying to dress it up in principles.
You can inconvenience other people in a thousand different ways every day. And should be allowed to.
The idea that laziness or inconvenience ought to be outlawed... do you realize what you're saying? The kind of police state you're envisioning?
This is a principled thing. What's next, I get fined for walking slowly on the sidewalk? For holding up the line at the supermarket for a price check? For paying in dimes instead of dollar bills? Think about the legal principle you seem to be suggesting.
- littering
- jaywalking
- excessive noise
Etc.
And we impose fines for all of those — under the consistent logic that you can’t infringe on others use of public space with your own.
I’m glad that you can admit this is not about your usage of public spaces though — it’s just about you wanting to be a nuisance to others without consequence.
It's about not wanting to outlaw every possible nuisance. And you're right -- we do outlaw plenty of things. But we also have to draw the line somewhere.
Jaywalking is a great example. It was finally repealed in NYC. Since it's fundamentally a pedestrian-first city.
And public photography is one of those things where it's such a tiny nuisance, and the cost of regulating it would be so onerous, that we wisely choose not to.
None of those things require you to invade their privacy and enjoyment of public space — you’re just negatively impacting them because you’re lazy and antisocial.
Fines are how we handle such nuisances in other cases.
And fines aren't some kind of innocent thing. If you don't pay the fines, the police come to seize your property. If you resist, you go to jail. That's what you want?
Again, that's just not the world I want to live in.
Everyone should be allowed to enjoy public spaces without you imposing on them for your activities — and that includes you taking photos.
Nothing about their desire not to be photographed requires that you not take photographs — just that if you do, without their permission and with identifiable features showing, you’ll have to take a few seconds to blur that before you upload it publicly.
Yes — that’s absolutely an antisocial imposition on their enjoyment.
And yes — you should be fined for doing that.
You don't think people just happen to be in the background?
> Everyone should be allowed to enjoy public spaces without you imposing on them for your activities — and that includes you taking photos.
No, they shouldn't. It's a balance. When people play frisbee, that's "imposing" on me too, because it's not easy for me to put a blanket down in the middle of their game. Should they be fined too? I don't think so. I think I can just live with the inconvenience of walking 30 more seconds.
And I don't even know what you're talking about with blurring people's faces being so easy. My camera app doesn't do that. And even if it did, manually clicking on every single face in all 40 photos from the park that don't belong to my friends and family? No thanks. People can live with their faces in the background online, just like I can live with people playing frisbee where I'd rather be sitting.
I mean, what's next -- I'm not allowed to quote things people say in public and attribute it to them? I'm not allowed to say so-and-so was in this public park in a blog post? You don't have privacy in public places, because they're public.
Yes. I would like to go back to a time before everyone had 3 different cameras with them and the ability to share those photos to a global network so third parties can use that data to track what I am doing literally everywhere.
I no longer leave my house except for strictly necessary obligations.
What is making that the best cost-benefit analysis for you?
I don't think it's unreasonable to have a level-headed discussion about how society and technology have evolved since those norms came into practice, and if they should be expanded now that photography is ubiquitous.
You might have that wrong. It's when that space involves people wearing revealing clothing. And Airsoft kit is... not that.
It's not about exercise.