Item — HN Reader

Our idea of a public/private privacy division where private recording is discouraged and public is a free for all really feels dated.

I know personally I'd love to see a private/local/wide distribution division or something like that where simply going outside to get groceries or whatever doesn't count as consent to be plastered across the net. There are real harms to being a public figure and the net rarely understands context.

I do have one note on all this though. I think there are some real benefits to being able to record people in public re corruption, criminality etc so I don't think any changes should be about public recording but about distribution instead.

(Repost from the thread earlier today on the same subject)

4 comments

> I don't think any changes should be about public recording but about distribution instead.

I think this is pretty reasonable and something I hadn't thought of. I've been thinking about this generally a bunch as I agree that the blanket "No right to privacy in public" is really just lazy. Of course we've been filmed in public for decades now, but it wasn't being shown to people on the internet this whole time (or even to anyone in many cases). Concessions could be made for filming police/public figures and people committing crimes. It's probably harder than I think, but just being able to post anyone online is pretty terrible whether it's your "right" or not. Think of all the godawful nuisance "content" that would have just never existed.

> where simply going outside to get groceries or whatever doesn't count as consent to be plastered across the net.

I think this is wanting a rule that doesn't draw boundaries in a way that aligns with the natural world. Your right to see what is around you and to remember what you see is pretty fundamental. You might say there is a ethical reason not to gossip about what you remember seeing, but I would push back on the idea that it ought to be illegal for Bob to mention to Carol that he saw Alice at the store, and Meta glasses (or paparazzi or even Snow Crash's gargoyles) are a difference of degree, not kind, from the neighborhood gossip.

Seeing and recounting is different from recording and redistributing. It is not different just by degree, but by kind as well.

Gossip is lossy, video is much less so. When gossiping, the information is trusted less by default.

There is an invasive aspect to candid video that does not exist in gossip (not even slightly).

Germany makes a distinction between expectations of privacy and being in a public space. If you’re in a cafe and talking to someone at your table, you generally do not expect others to participate and listen to your conversation, that can be enough to be considered private and would likely be illegal to record without consent. The act of recording audio is in itself restricted, though if you share you can have additional charges. I’m pretty sure that makes always-on video recording (with audio) very much incompatible with German laws.

It’s an ok system but too restrictive and outdated IMHO, so many people recording something with their phone will unwillingly record people passing by, which is likely not allowed.

I'm speaking generally here, not specifically about German or any law. I also know there are probably situations I'm not thinking about. But it seems generally pretty cut and dry as to what the focus of a recording is. If you are filming your friend in public and there are people in the background, I don't see that as a big deal. If you film strangers, get audio of their conversation, you should not be allowed to post this online. If they are interacting or harassing you, this should also be a pretty cut and dry case where posting them is ok. I do realize this probably opens up a bunch of loop holes but ya. I dunno. Honestly, I'd rather have the German laws than what we have in North America right now.

I think the "American" version is the one that's outdated, if anything. The German one is a bit too restrictive, sure, but I'd rather lean a little towards too much privacy than too little.

I don’t know. I would move the restriction on the distribution more than the recording itself. Though I’m happy I didn’t move to the US when I had the opportunity, the German privacy laws are closer to my personal values than the US, I find the whole concept of having no privacy as soon as you’re in a public place pretty terrible

There's a lot of copyright and other rights management that can be applied. Many buildings are copyrighted. If you take a picture of a building, which you are free to do, you cannot make money from that image just because you took it while being in the open public. The same should be applicable to people as well. Yes, you took a picture of them while in public, but they people still own the rights to the likeness. If your image is clearly focused on a single person, you need rights releases to make money from that image. That's how it works in things like stock images. As far as how things work with the TMZ ilk of the world is an entirely different thing that we've seem to come to accept. The stalking of people, celebrity or not, just so people can be entertained at home with the personal drama of those people is just gross.

> Many buildings are copyrighted

Well, let me stop you right there. That's the bit that needs fixing.

Nope, can't stop right there. It is the situation we live in now. You can release a product like a poster or puzzle or whatever and try to YOLO with your protest, but you will lose in court when you are sued by the rights holder.

There's a museum with a very distinct building that is infamous for sending security staff out to tell photographers they cannot image the building. They have no idea what someone will do with the image, so they have no legal basis to prevent someone from taking the picture.

Yes folks, architecture is copyrightable under US Law! And other laws too!!

It seems plausible that the Perot Museum is copyrighted, and being post-1990 this should be a sure protection, but however, it should also be always permissible to photograph the exterior from public places and there should be nothing the staff can legally do to discourage this activity.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panora...

Interior photography by patrons would be another matter, and discretion and policy would be in play there as well.

> There's a museum with a very distinct building that is infamous for sending security staff out to tell photographers they cannot image the building

Which one is that?

perot museum dallas

They're probably doing it 1/to people who are on their property (the Museum can permit certain activities on its property while prohibiting others), and 2/for security purposes, e.g., to help slow the identification of building or security vulnerabilities, or to prevent harassing the staff.

If they said it's because the design of the building is copyrighted, they're just wrong. Nor can they prohibit the taking of photographs from off the property.

To frame the building properly, the best position is across the street not on their property. The building has been there for 20 years now, so disovering security vulns from snapping pics of the exterior are pretty established. But I'm glad you've come to the same ultimate conclusion as previously stated

> It is the situation we live in now.

That's what

> That's the bit that needs fixing.

means.

> Many buildings are copyrighted. If you take a picture of a building, which you are free to do, you cannot make money from that image just because you took it while being in the open public.

In which country? Certainly not the USA. There are very few countries in which this is true, such as France and Italy.