Jamie123
Veteran
Not that far-fetched at all. In the Wikileaks affair the US government has already subpoenaed Twitter and probably also other social networks to hand over personal e-mails and data of Wikileaks affiliates. It's not exactly the same thing but it just goes to show that, when under pressure, a government will go to great lengths in order to get as much information about suspect individuals as they can.
cliffpov
Established
This is kind of crazy talk. Reminds me of that late night radio talk show host (name escapes me) out of Parumph Nevada that was always talking about space ships, aliens and the like. Entertaining but not too realistic.
The face recognition software only works on Humans.
The space Aliens can visit and not worry about it.
The space Aliens can visit and not worry about it.
oftheherd
Veteran
Well sir, if you mean my post, I would be interested to know which part, or if you think all of it is.
oftheherd
Veteran
cliffpov
Established
No, oftheherd I was not referring to any specific post or poster. I have just read about 2/3rds of the postings here. The subject facinates me but we can't even seem to come to a consensus as to what we are agreeing or disagreeing about here. There seems to be some sort of idea about some vague face recoginition software/database and a vague conspriacy.
Reading the postings here simply reminded me of similar conjecture about government conspiracies regarding space ships, aliens, area 61 and the like. It is entertaining, but what do I know?
Reading the postings here simply reminded me of similar conjecture about government conspiracies regarding space ships, aliens, area 61 and the like. It is entertaining, but what do I know?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Everything we do is based on a (mostly) rational analysis of advantages and disadvantages. There comes a point when possible bad consequences, for me or for anyone else, are sufficiently remote that I cease to worry about them.
Also, as mentioned in an earlier post, I abhor the prospect of no-one ever seeing anything except their immediate environs, in the here and now.Banning street photography also means banning news photography, travel articles, even cookery articles (think of those 'market' shots). History vanishes; geography vanishes... (at least visually). Wouldn't you LOVE to see a street shot of ancient Rome, or Athens, or even London 500 years ago? Are we to be deprived of this over what I and many others believe to be misplaced fears. (Italics because we could be wrong.)
Again as mentioned before, for most of human history, in all but a few big cities, there's been very little privacy ayway. Everyone knew everyone's business -- if they cared, which mostly, they didn't (and still don't).
Cheers,
R.
Also, as mentioned in an earlier post, I abhor the prospect of no-one ever seeing anything except their immediate environs, in the here and now.Banning street photography also means banning news photography, travel articles, even cookery articles (think of those 'market' shots). History vanishes; geography vanishes... (at least visually). Wouldn't you LOVE to see a street shot of ancient Rome, or Athens, or even London 500 years ago? Are we to be deprived of this over what I and many others believe to be misplaced fears. (Italics because we could be wrong.)
Again as mentioned before, for most of human history, in all but a few big cities, there's been very little privacy ayway. Everyone knew everyone's business -- if they cared, which mostly, they didn't (and still don't).
Cheers,
R.
Jamie123
Veteran
I don't think we have to look at it as black and white (no pun intended). I don't think street photography should be banned. But that doesn't mean we should just be completely careless about our use of images on the internet. Just because there's 'little privacy anyway" doesn't mean we should just give up the little that we have.
andersju
Well-known
Regarding privacy in general in this day and age (and not specifically face recognition): being involved in IT security, and being a hardcore sceptic and non-conspiracy theorist, I can assure you that the reality of what's going on is far scarier than most people realize or imagine.
cliffpov
Established
andersju, I have a question, and I am asking most sincerely, I am not trying to quibble.
What is this thing, and why are we supposed to be afraid of it?
What is this thing, and why are we supposed to be afraid of it?
andersju
Well-known
The technology available today makes it possible for governments and others to monitor and analyze people's lives on a scale and a level of sophistication never before seen or possible. This is not some hazy conspiracy theory; this is going on at this very moment, and I'm not talking about Facebook or similar things that you don't have to participate in. I'm talking about the things that you actually don't have a choice about.
I already mentioned the EU data retention directive, the point of which is to make it possible to track where you are, who you are communicating with, and when. Example: when you call someone, the telecom operator has to log your geographic location and the location of the person you are calling, along with date and time and duration of the call. Same with all your text messages and email. This information must be stored for a period of 6-24 months and be available to law enforcement agencies.
(Note: this is not just if you are a suspect of crime. It applies to everyone.)
The directive has been criticized for many reasons, not least for its human rights violations. The EU parliament did, however, vote yes on it several years ago, which means all the member states are forced to implement it in law. Most countries have done this by now. There are proposals about extending it to also include people's searches. To protect the kids, you know.
In Sweden, as I noted before, the parliament passed in 2008 a very controversial mass surveillance law (of a kind usually associated with dictatorships) allowing the government to warrantlessly wiretap practically all Internet traffic. You could say it's the digital equivalent of a gov't official at the post office opening every letter, reading it and re-sealing it before delivery to you. (Except it's even worse, since most people conduct large parts of their business and social lives on the Internet these days.)
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is a plurilateral agreement that's now almost finalized. The purpose is to combat things like counterfeit goods, generic medicine and copyright infringement. That might not sound too bad to some, but many of the provisions are hair-raising:
"Newspapers reported that the draft agreement would empower security officials at airports and other international borders to conduct random ex officio searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for illegally downloaded or "ripped" music and movies. Travellers with infringing content would be subject to a fine and may have their devices confiscated or destroyed."
The ACTA negotiations were conducted in secret. The general public didn't become aware of them until 2008, when Wikileaks leaked a paper about it.
I could go on, but this is probably not the right place, and I might have bored you out of your mind already
I just wanted to give some actual examples of what's happening at the moment, not what might. (And remember: this is just the beginning.) If you're interested in these issues, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is a respectable organization that has fought for civil liberties for 20 years now.
This started about street photography, and is veering farther off-course.
It will be moved to "Off-Topic" if it does not get back to Photography.
Three Clicks of the Mouse for me....
It will be moved to "Off-Topic" if it does not get back to Photography.
Three Clicks of the Mouse for me....
ampguy
Veteran
wow, this is such a revelation of bad potential exposed in this thread. I think I am going to change my name here to oftheamp, and cover my real profile face picture with a bent photo of the bad neighbor dog ...
Remember the movie "The Jerk"?
Get your name in a Phone Book, downhill from there.
Face it Flounder... so much for privacy.
If they do a remake of "The Jerk, 2011"- Navin R Johnson will join Facebook.
so- face recognition, street photo's, how do they compare with people voluntarily tweeting every minute of their existence to the world.
Get your name in a Phone Book, downhill from there.
Face it Flounder... so much for privacy.
If they do a remake of "The Jerk, 2011"- Navin R Johnson will join Facebook.
so- face recognition, street photo's, how do they compare with people voluntarily tweeting every minute of their existence to the world.
Last edited:
anthony_semone
Established
well, I'm still rocking along here behind rotating IP's on a VPN, 512bit encrypted communications email and chat , including photographs. LOL. gummint is gonna have to work might hard to track that. Is it not possible in European countries to employ that technology?
tony
tony
Jamie123
Veteran
But in all seriousness, I don't see this as going off topic. It's a discussion about street photography and privacy in the age of the internet so it's only natural that we discuss the internet and how it relates to our privacy.
Last edited by a moderator:
anthony_semone
Established
+2 on that jamie
tony
tony
andersju
Well-known
It sure is, but a) I reckon 99% of the population has no clue about how to do it (and I care about them too!
) and b) more importantly, we shouldn't have to as citizens in a democracy. There's the famous quote often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but in fact (probably) written by John Basil Barnhill: "Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty."Sure, I do full disk encryption on my laptop. I run a Tor node for the benefit of others. I use HTTPS Everywhere. Etc. Even six years ago I wouldn't have imagined that I'd one day do all this as a matter of routine; this makes me sad. And I'm not even considered to be particularly paranoid among some of my friends!
People change their behaviour if they know someone might be watching or listening. That's a fact. (There was a study a couple of years ago about the effects of data retention on people's communication habits in Germany.) On the subject of surveillance and its effects, I can recommend the German film Das Leben der Anderen ("The Lives of Others") - one of the best I've seen in recent years, pure brilliance.
Chris101
summicronia
I have recently participated in a discussion of a similar topic on another online photography forum. There as here, the proponents of each side mostly favored the laws and culture that was prevalent in their own countries. Members from Germany and Norway for example, supported a right of privacy from publication. Members from the United States and England are generally in favor of a right of the photographer to benefit from their personal expression involving others in public.
It does not surprise me at all that, what are considered rights, are culturally based. In fact, just tonight the US President stated that the 'right to free speech was a central tenet of democracy'. We are taught from birth what is acceptable and what is not. Over time, we accept that the way things are in our experience is the way things should be. Now, with easy global interaction, these ideas of what is right and what isn't come into conflict.
What seems like a moral obligation to one group, is an affront to the fundamental ideals of the other. This is not actually so, it is merely a difference in culture.
The argument that photographers owe it to the public not to include identifying information in their photos is a red herring though. The data we collect through our photography on the internet is miniscule compared with the incredible volume of photographic data amassed by all of our governments - I counted 40 some cameras aimed at me just on the way home from the grocery store! And all of our governments have exempted themselves from following any restrictions on collecting private data. In fact, they feel it is their duty to do so.
It does not surprise me at all that, what are considered rights, are culturally based. In fact, just tonight the US President stated that the 'right to free speech was a central tenet of democracy'. We are taught from birth what is acceptable and what is not. Over time, we accept that the way things are in our experience is the way things should be. Now, with easy global interaction, these ideas of what is right and what isn't come into conflict.
What seems like a moral obligation to one group, is an affront to the fundamental ideals of the other. This is not actually so, it is merely a difference in culture.
The argument that photographers owe it to the public not to include identifying information in their photos is a red herring though. The data we collect through our photography on the internet is miniscule compared with the incredible volume of photographic data amassed by all of our governments - I counted 40 some cameras aimed at me just on the way home from the grocery store! And all of our governments have exempted themselves from following any restrictions on collecting private data. In fact, they feel it is their duty to do so.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Not just government, Chris. Think of how many times you're photographed by privately operated security cameras when you go to the bank, the gas station, the grocery store, walmart, the mall. Schools, both public and private, often have security cameras too. Privacy is a dead letter.