Photography And Personal Privacy - Where Do You Draw The Line?

[Riedquat]

Lots of outrage on here from people who could not cope with having their mobiles taken away.

I hanker for simpler times when you went to an event and lived it through your eyes and stored it in your brain. You then brought those recollections back in years to come - sometimes they were hazy or rose tinted but that doesn't matter, it's like a song you heard or a book you once read.

Now it seems everywhere you go there are people holding up their tablet. They are not living the experience in real time and that is kind of worrying. They just want to record it. Even the mundane. Do they get the time to watch all this stuff?

Oh I completely agree with that (not having a mobile probably helps), still doesn't make some peoples' over-reactions any less bad though.

[Big Orange]

Having to trade in my damaged Nokia Lumia 930 for a Samsung Galaxy S4, I do agree that that smart devices are heading more dangerously towards having too many eggs in one basket with a pocket device that is relatively delicate and relatively easy to lose. While at the far end of the spectrum there is real harm and humiliation in the distribution of "revenge porn" or digital photography having a role in stalking, etc, however I see no merit at all in the vague but official restriction of casual public photography. All it does is give cops an exercise in looking more busy than they are, lend rent-a-cops with delusions of grandeur an excuse to pick on shoppers, and is another hair trigger for retarded nutters (like in Byron's amusing story and mine) to start on people.

[thombleached]

I once worked for a surveillance company (research). I was doing a piece of work for a bank to check how good the tellers were at upselling. It involved filming the screens that they were using and microphoning each transaction with a customer.

I was doing a store reccy and taking pictures inside when a rather angry woman approached me and demanded I remove all pictures that had her in shot.

Whilst I had the backing of the bank to take those shots I still politely accepted, then took more anyway.

Given that unbeknown to her, chances are I had footage of her entire visit on CCTC, and all of her account transactions that she made with the teller; I found her anger about a few poxy out of focus shots, a tad OTT

[winkie]

......there is a positive and negative to everything......living, working or visiting a high density area you are bound to be on all kinds of CCTV cameras and cell phones....par for the course.....when you think about it we must be shown in all kinds of places Inc Facebook and not know it. I am not even a member with no intention to ever becoming one.

[thombleached]

Lots of outrage on here from people who could not cope with having their mobiles taken away.

I hanker for simpler times when you went to an event and lived it through your eyes and stored it in your brain. You then brought those recollections back in years to come - sometimes they were hazy or rose tinted but that doesn't matter, it's like a song you heard or a book you once read.

Now it seems everywhere you go there are people holding up their tablet. They are not living the experience in real time and that is kind of worrying. They just want to record it. Even the mundane. Do they get the time to watch all this stuff?

I remember posting here last year after bonfire night - several people in my peripheral filming the fireworks instead of watching it! I mentioned it to my wife later and she said they were probably filming to post it on facebook. As Louis says: You're not ever going to watch it and none of your narcissistic friends are either

[Guest eight]

Amazing with all these cameras around that mysterious or even contentious events still happen. And still no definitive footage of a ghost, a UFO or the Loch Ness Monster.

[LiveinHope]

I remember posting here last year after bonfire night - several people in my peripheral filming the fireworks instead of watching it! I mentioned it to my wife later and she said they were probably filming to post it on facebook. As Louis says: You're not ever going to watch it and none of your narcissistic friends are either

I find that if I look at something through a camera viewfinder I don't look at it as I am focused totally, upon the composition; I assume it is similar for others and so you defer your experience to another time when the event has passed and the sensations are no more than a 2D image. You take the picture and move on without ever looking.

I use a camera a lot to obtain images of the world to illustrate my work. In fact I am always looking for a photographic opportunity when I am out. Consequently, I see the photograph and not the place. I leave my camera at home if I want to enjoy myself and have any memories. Initially, leaving the camera behind is a hard decision for, as sure as eggs are eggs, I will see a good image. At the end of the day however, my personal experiences always outweigh the lost photo opportunity.

[thombleached]

I find that if I look at something through a camera viewfinder I don't look at it as I am focused totally, upon the composition; I assume it is similar for others and so you defer your experience to another time when the event has passed and the sensations are no more than a 2D image. You take the picture and move on without ever looking.

I use a camera a lot to obtain images of the world to illustrate my work. In fact I am always looking for a photographic opportunity when I am out. Consequently, I see the photograph and not the place. I leave my camera at home if I want to enjoy myself and have any memories. Initially, leaving the camera behind is a hard decision for, as sure as eggs are eggs, I will see a good image. At the end of the day however, my personal experiences always outweigh the lost photo opportunity.

Gigs are the worst for it. Boils my piss when I see people filming the damn things. Filming a gig gives you the antithesis of what the experience is. You use all your senses, the rush of adrenaline, euphoria of those around you, the smell of sweat. Filming it or even taking a photograph is never going to replicate that experience or even give you a whiff of what you felt at the time. Best to just enjoy the moment.

As with most of the modern world being shit, I blame facespace and all it's ********.

[DTMark]

I've wondered before about the legality of filming people in things like Road Wars and Police Interceptors.

The "suspect" will quite often attempt to push the camera away to be told by the Police that he has a right to film in a public place.

Though I wouldn't mind betting that if the Police were the subject of the video with someone filming them in another context they might see this differently.

Filming it is one thing. Using it, as in transmitting it on TV to the public, is perhaps another - do they have to get permission?

We live on a lane in a rural area. One weekend in the thick of that freezing winter, we had ice "stalactites" hanging down from the guttering, perhaps two to three feet long. It was quite a spectacular sight. We did have the guttering cleared at a later point.

Anyway, as we left the house, a group of a dozen people (residents I assume, I don't imagine the ramblers were out that day) were all taking photographs of it. We got in the car and drove off; they saw us, but carried on regardless.

This did feel somewhat strange though I struggle to identify why I thought it odd/wrong. It's as if I somehow expected to be consulted, for instance "Do you mind if we take pictures of your house?" but then why should I mind and why should they ask.

[MarkG]

PHOTOGRAPHS WILL STEAL YOUR SOUL! BAN CAMERAS BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!

Back in the real world, in twenty years we'll just log in to Rent-A-Body when we want to do something outside the house, so it will all be irrelevant. Only the poor will have to travel in their own bodies.

[Rave]

If you don't want people taking pictures of you in public, then either don't leave the house or wear a balaclava or a burqa (still legal despite the best efforts of the anti-freedom brigade).

Loads of people seem to labour under the misapprehension that you have a right to choose not to be photographed when out in public. You don't. When out on the streets anyone can photograph anybody at any time, hence why paparazzi can operate legally (harassment laws notwithstanding). In privately owned public spaces like shopping centres, convention centres, concert halls etc. it is the prerogative of the owner of the space whether to grant people permission to take photographs, not the people who have chosen to come to said venue.

I was confronted earlier this year by a young bloke at a train station where I'd gone to photograph a freight train. As I was packing up my camera he approached me having crossed over from the other platform, and demanded to know what I'd been taking photographs of. I told him it was the train, and he demanded to see the pics. Now he had no right to demand anything, but I'm never particularly good in confrontational situations, and in any case I suppose one should always look to diffuse a confrontation even when one is in the right, so I showed him the pics I'd taken of the train, and he walked off. I didn't bother to point out that by crossing to my platform he'd walked past a couple of CCTV cameras that otherwise wouldn't have seen him; I was half tempted to call the police and inform them that someone who was very paranoid about being photographed had just caught a train from that station...

Had he asked me to delete the photos I'd have told him to do one. He was a few inches taller than me but didn't look like he'd ever squatted 400lb in his life...

[MrPin]

When did photography become a "suspicious" activity? Surely carrying a big SLR is hardly covert? As Mr Rave points out you are on the mall CCTV anyway.

[200p]

Also you can wear sunglasses - but I generally don't want to be spotted in public. Stealth and all...

[Exiled Canadian]

It's pretty annoying where your own kids are concerned. So if there's a school play, one single parent anonymously saying no to allowing photos, means no-one can take a single photo. Or on sports day. Or when a team wins a competition.

The won't just drag the kid whose parents don't allow photos out of the way so the rest of the parents can take a photo, because that identifies and "stigmatises" the child. I suppose there are circumstances where there is a legitimate reason, but in most cases I'm pretty sure it's just the natural result of the constant fear-mongering with regard to children's safety.

I can understand how frustrating this is, but having an adopted child I can tell you that it is at least sometimes justified. The prevalence of social media means that it is all too easy for a child's picture (and hence location) to get splashed all over the internet.

[MrPin]

I can understand how frustrating this is, but having an adopted child I can tell you that it is at least sometimes justified. The prevalence of social media means that it is all too easy for a child's picture (and hence location) to get splashed all over the internet.

What? After I have taken the film to Boots to be developed, and scanned it?

[Hectors House]

I've wondered before about the legality of filming people in things like Road Wars and Police Interceptors.

The "suspect" will quite often attempt to push the camera away to be told by the Police that he has a right to film in a public place.

Though I wouldn't mind betting that if the Police were the subject of the video with someone filming them in another context they might see this differently.

Filming it is one thing. Using it, as in transmitting it on TV to the public, is perhaps another - do they have to get permission?

We live on a lane in a rural area. One weekend in the thick of that freezing winter, we had ice "stalactites" hanging down from the guttering, perhaps two to three feet long. It was quite a spectacular sight. We did have the guttering cleared at a later point.

Anyway, as we left the house, a group of a dozen people (residents I assume, I don't imagine the ramblers were out that day) were all taking photographs of it. We got in the car and drove off; they saw us, but carried on regardless.

This did feel somewhat strange though I struggle to identify why I thought it odd/wrong. It's as if I somehow expected to be consulted, for instance "Do you mind if we take pictures of your house?" but then why should I mind and why should they ask.

I've had photography as a hobby for over 20 years, I was taking some pictures of the Cardington Airship Hangars and decided to have a look in Cardington village where the crew of the airship that crashed in France are buried. I noticed that the houses in the area looked pretty (exterior painted in nice colours and looking almost continental) As I walked down this road taking photographs a woman emerged from one of the houses, I was expecting a mouthful but I busied myself with taking shots of the village church from the street.

When I was growing up the village post office used to sell black and white postcards of village street scenes, if I took some photos today to update those scenes I bet I would be accosted by an irate local.

[Scunnered]

Remember taking a few snaps of a parking bay on my street in order to appeal a ticket a few years ago and a neighbour(who I had never previously met) in a passing car stopped and got a bit arsey with me for possibly taking a picture which may or may not have had their car in it, citing 'security risks'. I explained what I was doing then there was a sort of terse standoff where I though he was actually going to get out of the car(a Defender done out in a Friesian cow paintjob) but thankfully common sense prevailed and knucklehead drove off. Nice to meet you, neighburrito!

Did he say "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM????" ?

[happy_renting]

I can understand how frustrating this is, but having an adopted child I can tell you that it is at least sometimes justified. The prevalence of social media means that it is all too easy for a child's picture (and hence location) to get splashed all over the internet.

These have been developed for use by adopted children for this very purpose.

[MrPin]

These have been developed for use by adopted children for this very purpose.

Where is it worn?

[Hectors House]

Always makes me laugh when schools and dance clubs say no photography at events normally citing that there is a kid in care who can't be photographed taking part, then they remind you before you leave that still photos and a video can be purchased for a rip off fee!

[MrPin]

Always makes me laugh when schools and dance clubs say no photography at events normally citing that there is a kid in care who can't be photographed taking part, then they remind you before you leave that still photos and a video can be purchased for a rip off fee!

Ha ha! Cameras are for "somebody else". What foolishness?

[happy_renting]

Always makes me laugh when schools and dance clubs say no photography at events normally citing that there is a kid in care who can't be photographed taking part, then they remind you before you leave that still photos and a video can be purchased for a rip off fee!

Report them as paedos.

[happy_renting]

Where is it worn?

In mosques.