kiev4a said:
The time are changing. Here’s what I mean.
[Snip - excellent points]
And the older I get the easier it is for me to understand the attitude of the man in the restaurant – “You are invading my space – If I want to share my life with the world I’ll sign up to be an idiot on a reality TV show!” It’s hard to blame him.
Your points are all good ones - and all emotion-based. Yes, people are more wary now. Yes, privacy laws were written before our modern world. Yes, I can *understand* the feelings of a person who does not want their photograph taken.
In my opinion, this changes nothing in terms of law. Will it change things with regard to privacy rights in the future? Hard to say, but I suspect not. Here's why.
Supreme Court Justice Brandeis famously said that the ultimate right, the tuti capo di capo, is the right to be let alone. Privacy is paramount.
But there are other rights too. And rights which do not overlap each other are each preeminant in their own baliwick. The right of free speech, the right of the press, these are also enshrined and marked as 'not to be infringed upon' in the Bill of Rights (USA, of course, YMMV).
When push comes to shove, your right to privacy can only be asserted when you shield yourself inside your own property. "A man's home is his castle," they say, and you're safe from prying eyes there.
But when you step out in public - despite an understandable desire to be let alone - everyone sees you. You walk by a crowd of people and they see you. Can you demand that they not look at you? What if you're with someone other than your wife? What if you're doing someting that would embarrass you? Most people would agree that if someone saw you, you would have no right to demand that they look away. What happened to your 'right to privacy' in that case?
And if the person had a camera? If they took your photo? What right do you have that is somehow different than if a person just personally witnessed you? That is the stand that the courts have taken, so far. Will this change? Time will tell.
As previously discussed - when your photo *is* taken, you certainly have the right to control how it is used commercially, or to refuse permission for such use. And you have recourse to the courts if this is not done.
You mentioned many reasons why a person might not want a photo taken of their child by a stranger - paedophiles might put his or her photo on the internet, do God knows what with it. I am not mocking your concern, I understand the sympathize. What to do?
People drink and drive. Then do terrible things when they drive DUI. Shall we then ban cars?
People beat their wives and husbands. Shall we then ban marriage?
People have children and then abuse them in horrible ways. Shall we then regulate the having of children?
The solution, it seems to me, has never been to ban the lawful activities of a class of people in order to 'protect' another class of people. Even the hated Klan is permitted to exist - to march - to demonstrate - and we do this because we live in a free society and we do not retreat from evil.
At the same time, government surveillance of our citizenry has been increasing. Cameras everywhere - video and still. We're all being filmed - without our permission - and who knows where these images end up? Who sees them?
So, I point a camera at citizens without their permission. I take their photos and I do God knows what with them. But I demonstrate, on a daily basis, that we still live in a free society. I can take a photo of a citizen - or a cop. I can take a photo of a building, or I can take a photo of a bridge. And if I stop - if I give up - if I say that nobody likes me taking their photo anyway, then do you have your privacy back?
I eliminate the notion that you have privacy if you are outside of your property. Be aware that if you go out, people are watching - possibly recording - and demonstrating that we have the right to free speech and so on.
Or something like that.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks