Street Photography, the Internet and the Right to Privacy

[lilmsmaggie]

I'm not so sure that we, as amatuers, or even professional photographers can protect the privacy of the people we photograph in public places. The world is getting smaller and smaller in terms of data and information sharing. Somewhere, someplace; Facebook, flicker, blog, corporate and public web sites, data is being mined by someone including our respective governments.

You pointed out Facebook and other companies finalizing face-recognition software, and web crawling algorythms to associate people with photographs. Well, I hate to be the one to burst your bubble but the technology exists NOW in many forms.

Case in point: this company: http://www.l1id.com makes available systems for motor vehicle departments across the U.S. to use face recognition and other biometrics for driver license issuance. Here in California, the Calif. DMV is already begun issuing driver's licenses and identification cards with biometric information embedded in the magnetic strip on the back of the card.

That information is then stored in a data base. And guess what? That information gets shared and made available to all law enforcement agencies across the country and they probably have a copy in THEIR data base!

And to quote Samuel L. Jackson who said in the first "Jurassic Park" film: "Hold onto your Butts! ..." Once that data resides in a data base, someone, anyone with the right tools and intent can then do something called: "Web Data Scraping."

Web Data Scraping is essentially a way to mine data from any web site without detection. Google: data scraping, web data scrapping, website data extraction, etc.

That's right - without detection. Doesn't matter if its login protected, you can now mine that data whether it be a .pdf or an image file; whether its in a spreadsheet or word document.

How's that for privacy protection?

 

[GSNfan]

The trend towards increased monitoring/surveillance of citizens by governments has been ongoing for the past decade(s) and shows no signs of slowing down, I'm afraid, and as computer power increases the level of sophistication increases. For example, the highly controversial data retention directive has been implemented in several (most?) EU states already. In Sweden it's particularly bad; a couple of years ago an extremely controversial law, "FRA-lagen", was passed. It "authorizes the state to warrantlessly wiretap all telephone and Internet traffic that crosses Sweden's borders." (Which in practice is nearly all traffic.)

...and in more repressive countries, governments have monitored people's communications for a long time and routinely go after people who post the wrong kind of thoughts on blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Iran, for instance, has an advanced censoring and monitoring system built by Nokia and Siemens:

"Interviews with technology experts in Iran and outside the country say Iranian efforts at monitoring Internet information go well beyond blocking access to Web sites or severing Internet connections.

Instead, in confronting the political turmoil that has consumed the country this past week, the Iranian government appears to be engaging in a practice often called deep packet inspection, which enables authorities to not only block communication but to monitor it to gather information about individuals, as well as alter it for disinformation purposes, according to these experts."

(Wall Street Journal)

The world is not perfect, it has never been so, and in fact as you read history, it seems things are much better now than even lets say 20 years ago.

We have two options, either we take photos or we don't. My view is that we take photos so that there is a record and visual history of the people by the people. To me that is enough of a reason to risk it, or as they say wing it on the street.

 

[Arjay]

Phew - it seems it's awfully difficult not to talk at crossed purposes ...

Yes, I've been told this by others who currently work in intelligence. But I think the flaw lies in 'viable business model' (given the explosion of data). Sure, if I post "Fred Smith (or Hans Schmidt) of 1, Buggins Drive (or Bugginsstraße 1), Anywheretown, 2:30pm, March 12th, 2007, in the shopping mall at ______" it MIGHT be easily searched. But an unnamed person? Usually identified at most by city or village? This strikes me as worrying more than I need to.

What you describe is just a frontend to some data base into which you're typing your query. If the data base exists and is filled with data sets, then such a query is possible.

In order to get there, a software program called a 'crawler' automatically searches the net for data snippets it can correlate to each other. Assuming I have a picture that I have labelled John Doe, Washington, then the crawler finds the link to said picture and tries to tie it to any other records it has already stored on some computer server which are called 'John Doe, Washington'. Lets assume for the sake of simplicity, that there is only one John Doe in Washington, or else you'd get a truckload of false positives.

The crawler does this snippet search for all the names it already has in its data base, and continues to do so as long as there are new names being fed into the data base. Give the crawler enough time, computer processing capacity (thnk server farms) and storage capacity, and you have a system that can work autonomously 24/7, eventually producing a catalogue of anybody in the world who has ever been documented on some computer which is tied to the internet. The data base will then be ready for search queries from any customer who is paying for access. That's the business model.

I just question whether street photography is of any significance whatsoever compared with all the other ways people have of finding out about you, via the 'phone company, airline passenger lists, etc.

All of these data are relevant, particularly if they can be correlated to each other.

Pictures, however play a very special role: If you have a data base data set that includes a picture, then you can analyze the picture to produce a biometric signature of the corresponding face, much like a fingerprint.

This 'faceprint' can help to identify people, who might be at a bank counter, trying to get a loan. If a security camera in the bank acquires your face, extracts a faceprint and sends this piece of data to said data base for comparison with all faceprints stored, then the man at the counter gains access to all the data that have been collected about you, even if he hasn't asked you to identify yourself. Sounds scary? You bet it is.

In this case, you will be at the mercy of the data quality that is contained in your data base entry.Suppose your data set contains some false positives, then you'll have a lot of things to explain, even if you don't have the faintest idea what the problem is. Sounds like in a Kafka novel ...

Frankly, I don't want to contribute to such a kind of problem for anybody.

 

[andersju]

We have two options, either we take photos or we don't. My view is that we take photos so that there is a record and visual history of the people by the people. To me that is enough of a reason to risk it, or as they say wing it on the street.

I completely agree with you on this. My point was simply that people taking pictures of each other ought to be among the least of our worries right now. (Hey, that reminds me of a Kinks song...)

 

[nightfly]

I still don't see, at the end of the day why I would have any moral or ethical duty to protect a stranger on a random street from some imagined, potentially nefarious face recognition software and associated data correlation.

Can anyone tell me an analogous situation where we are ethically compelled to prevent harm to a stranger from a potential threat that may or may not currently exist?

It honestly seems somewhat ludicrous to me and at bottom of anyone's list in a world of identity theft and ubiquitous monitoring and information sharing.

There are documented cases of banks throwing out data tapes with people account numbers on them, of web sites like Gawker having usernames and passwords stolen and any number of very direct data theft due to sheer negligence on entities that should bear responsibility for safeguarding data. However a street photographer taking photos in a public place seems so far removed from a negligent or even a potentially negligent act that I can hardly see why anyone would care.

 

[lilmsmaggie]

All of these data are relevant, particularly if they can be correlated to each other.

Pictures, however play a very special role: If you have a data base data set that includes a picture, then you can analyze the picture to produce a biometric signature of the corresponding face, much like a fingerprint.

This 'faceprint' can help to identify people, who might be at a bank counter, trying to get a loan. If a security camera in the bank acquires your face, extracts a faceprint and sends this piece of data to said data base for comparison with all faceprints stored, then the man at the counter gains access to all the data that have been collected about you, even if he hasn't asked you to identify yourself. Sounds scary? You bet it is.

In this case, you will be at the mercy of the data quality that is contained in your data base entry.Suppose your data set contains some false positives, then you'll have a lot of things to explain, even if you don't have the faintest idea what the problem is. Sounds like in a Kafka novel ...

Frankly, I don't want to contribute to such a kind of problem for anybody.

And this is at the crux of the whole protecting people's privacy problem.

There are data stores (data bases), cameras and other information gathering devices everywhere: banks, malls, and even street intersections, you name it.

IMHO -- I wouldn't worry about contributing to "such a problem," because with
your contribution or without it; the data gathering, monitoring and surveillance will continue with or without your help. As well you pointed out, as technology becomes more sophiticated and robust, the means and methods of gathering information will become just that much easier.

Welcome to the 21st Century -- 1984 is alive and well.

 

[ferider]

The information is already there, Arjay, photos or not. To a point where it is hard to filter important pieces out of junk. In your example, when googling the typical person, your bank teller would have a hard time filtering quickly the most important info out of the typical information flood, relevant or not, that google returns.

Maybe our photos with names, etc., due to increase of information flooding, will make filtering even more difficult and add to privacy ?

PS: as a side note, the German "Datenschutz" does not exist in the US. This combined with a simplistic identification and credit rating system (drivers licenses and social security id) has huge implications on lack of privacy in the US at least. I am guessing with much more impact than photos can have.

 

[Jamie123]

It's late and I don't have time to read every post but skimming through the thread I notice that while the OP raised a question regarding the ethics of photographing people in public the discussion so far has, for the most part, focused on the legalities of street photography. One shouldn't confuse one for the other. One can argue that something is immoral regardless of whether or not it's legal.

 

[lilmsmaggie]

It's late and I don't have time to read every post but skimming through the thread I notice that while the OP raised a question regarding the ethics of photographing people in public the discussion so far has, for the most part, focused on the legalities of street photography. One shouldn't confuse one for the other. One can argue that something is immoral regardless of whether or not it's legal.

Actually, the OP raised a question regarding protecting the privacy of the people we photograph in public. It's wasn't a question of whether it is legal to photograph a person in public or not, or whether it was moral or immoral.

 

[Jamie123]

Actually, the OP raised a question regarding protecting the privacy of the people we photograph in public. It's wasn't a question of whether it is legal to photograph a person in public or not, or whether it was moral or immoral.

Sure it was. He specifically talked about a 'code of ethics'.

 

[nightfly]

The OP did question the morality of the act as well.

My counter is in what other situation are we asked to evaluate the morality of potentially exposing a stranger to a technology that may or may not exist in a way that is usable to do evil and may or may not be used for nefarious purposes by a hitherto unknown third party.

It seems like we are being asked to make a moral judgment about an act that might unintentionally expose someone to a potential danger.

I, for one can't think of another situation where protecting someone from such a second order, unintentional hypothetical danger enters our moral calculus, but perhaps I'm overlooking something. I never was very good at calculus.

 

[wgerrard]

Arjay, you raise very important, and very difficult, questions.

Much of what concerns you involves how your photos may be treated by someone else. This is a subset of an issue that confronts every developed democratic society: How can citizens control the use of invasive technology when it is deployed by private corporate entities who are not subject to electoral sanction and who are relatively immune from targeted market pressure.

I don't have any answers. But, I suspect the answers will come from a combination of technology that enables people to protect their privacy and legislation that supports it. E.g., if Facebook can deploy facial recognition pictures of me, I ought to be able to do the same and then prevent their use in any unauthorized fashion. The law should back me up in that by providing penalties for abusers.

 

[wgerrard]

The OP did question the morality of the act as well.

My counter is in what other situation are we asked to evaluate the morality of potentially exposing a stranger to a technology that may or may not exist in a way that is usable to do evil and may or may not be used for nefarious purposes by a hitherto unknown third party.

It seems like we are being asked to make a moral judgment about an act that might unintentionally expose someone to a potential danger.

I, for one can't think of another situation where protecting someone from such a second order, unintentional hypothetical danger enters our moral calculus, but perhaps I'm overlooking something. I never was very good at calculus.

It's called neglect and endangerment. . If you leave a six-year-old kid on her own in the wrong place, you "unintentionally expose" her to risk.

If you expose someone to risk from a third party, and you can reasonably be held to have understood that risk, odds are you will be held accountable.

 

[Arjay]

I still don't see, at the end of the day why I would have any moral or ethical duty to protect a stranger on a random street from some imagined, potentially nefarious face recognition software and associated data correlation.

Duty? I don't think it's a question of duty. At best, it's a question of self-interest: What you don't want anybody else doing to you is exactly what you shouldn't to to others. And this is where we get back to ethics: If we all develop a certain conscousness in dealing with data, then data misuse will become more difficult.

There are documented cases of banks throwing out data tapes with people account numbers on them, of web sites like Gawker having usernames and passwords stolen and any number of very direct data theft due to sheer negligence on entities that should bear responsibility for safeguarding data. However a street photographer taking photos in a public place seems so far removed from a negligent or even a potentially negligent act that I can hardly see why anyone would care.

There will always be negligence and bad intention - we won't stop that. But we can do our part (just as many others should do too) in making the world a little better.

The thing that seems so hard to understand is the fact that the little pieces of information that everyone of us has under his control seem to be so irrelevant. Don't let that fool you: It is only when these data are aggregated, will they gain relevance, and the potential to do harm.

A little grain of sand in the gearbox can go a long way.

 

[cliffpov]

With nearly everyone in the civilized world today carrying a digital camera what do we suppose "us RFFers" contribute to the total volume of photo's taken per year? Although I appreciate the good intentions of most of the folks here on these forums, I don't see where our miniscule contributions to the sheer volume of photography these days amounts to a hill of beans.

The quality of photographs here is far superior, but the quantity is non-existant as a percentage of the whole. Its still nice to know most of us are trying to be responsible.

 

[Jamie123]

I have to agree with this on its face and would be willing to say that it most likely extends to the European continent and beyond.

I think the point is moot insofar as these data and images most likely already exist in some form, especially here in the U.S. Think about it:

You apply for a job, an identification card, a driver's license, undergo a background or security check. These acts in and of themselves are gathering and storing data as well as images in some cases.

Not only have you provided personal identifying information, e.g. name, address, birth date, place of birth, etc. etc., but you probably submitted to finger-printing as well.

Attempting to protect someone's privacy in this post 9/11-era where most Americans have already lost some constitutional liberties as a result of an act by the president and Congress, and subjecting oneself to the guilt of questioning themselves whether they are acting immorally or unethically
would seem almost absurd.

I've been in IT for over 25 years. I work for a large state agency within the state of California. In fact I've worked for several large agencies within the state. I am embarrassed to say and admit that in the act of doing my job, I have helped build, design and test systems that WILL extract, store, correlate and disseminate all kinds of personal information that could be used and potentially abused in a manner most of us would be afraid to consider even in our worst nightmare.

A plethora of information can be gathered about you and all WITHOUT an image of you.

I see no reason for amateur or professional photographers to beat themselves up, or subject themselves to psychological self-flagellation and guilt over an innocent act of picture taking in public.

Your neighborhood mall, corner convenience store, traffic monitoring system and workplace are already monitoring and video-tapping you.

Big Brother is in the house! -- if you get my drift.

What measures you would take now to protect someone's privacy, would be too little too late.

The damage is done.

But that's a bogus argument. You cannot rid yourself from moral responsability just because what the government doing is worse than what you do. That's like saying you can carelessly pollute the environment because companies are polluting the environment much more than any individual.

 

[Paul_C]

...the right...

What the hell is a "right" anyway?

I'll look to a document that has had profound impact on me:

all men... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.... ...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men....

If they were truly unalienable, why would we need a piece of paper stating them? What need of Government could there possibly be to "secure" entitlements bestowed by God that were so important no earthly power could deny them?

"Rights" are hogwash. They're simply laws presented to us as moral gospel.

Government is fundamentally no more than a monopoly on violence.

The story goes into a lot of detail and is both fascinating and shocking with its description of the data traces every one of us leaves in the net...

What's shocking is how many people believe this kind of information gathering started with the net.

Every credit card you've ever used, every debit card, every check. Everywhere you've ever put your signature, you've left these data traces. They have been collected, bought and sold long before you or I imagined facebook or google possible.

Here's what I propose to do...

I propose to live my life such that I can look myself in the mirror in the morning, with minimal regret or disdain.

You understand what you understand, and another understands what he understands — and that's a beginning and an end of it. There exists between you and every one of your fellow beings a chasm infinitesimally narrow, yet absolutely uncrossable. The heart cannot cross it, the soul cannot cross it: much less can words cross it.

We all have our ideas of ethics and these are just some of mine right now. I don't expect anyone else to adopt my ideas or my ethics. I certainly don't expect to be able to express them in any way that could make them cross that "infinitesimally narrow chasm."

If people feel they desire and can come to some mutually agreed upon code of ethics, more power to them. I'm not able to be part of it. At least not right now.

I would suggest, however, that in the pursuit of this you don't limit your inquiry to photographers. We're only a small part of the equation, and heavily biased in the matter.

 

[Arjay]

PaulC, what exactly is your message with regard to the topic of this thread? If you state that nothing relevant can be said about the issue, why write so much text?

Could it be that I have offended you?

 

[Paul_C]

PaulC, what exactly is your message with regard to the topic of this thread?

In part that the underlying premise of the original post is fundamentally flawed.

The rest [of my post] is just drivel.

Could it be that I have offended you?

No! Not in any way. I didn't intend for it to come off that way at all. You just caught me thinking

 

[Arjay]

In part that the underlying premise of the original post is fundamentally flawed.

It appears that the 87 other posts in this thread indicate the opposite.