No. At least in the US you have no rights to photos taken of you in a public place except for certain specific situations. For examples, photos used for commercial purposes (e.g. ads, marketing materials) in which you are clearly recognizable (not part of a crowd shot) require model releases. However if I take a photo of you on the street and publish it in a personal blog, article, etc. you basically have no recourse. If you hold your breath and turn purple, I might take it down to make you go away but I have no obligation to do so.
I am not from the US and have no plans to ever go there. Germany has the righ to the use of the personal image. "Recht am eigenen Bild". There are limits, as when you are just a person in a crowd or a person of public interests, but focused shots without your consent are generally a no go. It is part of the right for "Informational self-determination"
What you are describing as a "right" is actually nothing more than an abridgment of the right to conduct simple journalism. You have no right to direct what I remember and your government has carefully spun this to ensure that you can't remember what you want to without being subject to absurd legal frameworks.
Fortunately, at least for the moment, this law is not enforced, as evinced by the people taking photos of people all over the place in Berlin without asking for "consent."
It is a basic human right. Sadly one you do not enjoy. And I am sorry it is that way.
I didnt think I had to have this kind of discussion here. What would I say to a person that thought freedom of religion was nothing but a legal framework?
I am making a moral argument here. Developing facial recognition software is a step towards a dystopia
I come to Germany all the time. The reality on the ground is no different: people enjoy a right to use cameras (and otherwise conduct journalism). I didn't even realize you had this absolutely stupid law on the books, but for your sake, I'm glad its unenforced.
Tbh I am shoked that this is that big of a cultural difference, but i guess god to know? The right to ones private information is one of the core principles of the German Hacker community.
Do you by any chance have some material on the moral position of the US hacker community on privacy? It seemed I assumed far to many similarities.
I suspect that the position of most in the "US hacker community," whatever that means, is that public information is public. Individuals may have issues with the government or large corporations harvesting data in a systematic way but I'm pretty sure most would be reluctant to restrict, for example, individuals taking photos in public places. In general, the US tilts more toward the rights of individuals to say/write/publish as they please than Europe probably does.
If anything, the "US hacker community" is probably more suspicious of the government restricting such rights than the population as a whole is.
No, it is not a cultural difference. People in Germany do not largely believe that they own every particle that bounces off of them. Your position is ridiculous and not widely held.
Thats a hypothesis you can easily test the next time you are in Germany. Shove random people in the street a camera in the face and scream "PHOTONS WANT TO BE FREE".
People in both places will react negatively to having their personal space invaded. People in both places will react positively to freedom of journalism and expression.
Although there are many cultural differences between our homes, this is not one of them.
I can't imagine how any place where freedom can prevail might go about telling you that you are required to avert your eyes on the basis of someone not wanting to be seen.
This seem like basic physics to me: if photons come to me, I can record them. Simple.
Your eyes dont have a log function. You can look at your partner during sex for certain, but secretly filming them and sharing the pictures is clearly wrong.
I know where you are coming from and what point you are trying to make, but to play devil’s advocate this analogy does not age gracefully in the digital age.
Obvious counter: what about digital photos? They don’t “exist” physically, as they are only a particular arrangement of existing electrons coaxed into a particular low-entropy state.
But to take it further in a less witty fashion, it seems that in the space of a very few short years sexting has gone from “edge” to “mainstream” and people you are “authorized” to “see” IRL are now people that willingly send you digital photos of themselves in compromising outfits or various states of undress. This time they are not giving you photons but digital files, probably with the intention of them “expiring” within the near future (when the snap/what-have-you expires) or with the presumption that they either magically disappear when the sexual relationship comes to an end or with the presumption that the relationship will last forever. What then?
It seems to be also illegal in the US? Is there an assumption of consent for replication given during the transmitting in your cultural sphere?
I never assumed there was that big of a difference in something I consider one of the most basic degrees of morality. Not just as a society, but also as the names states "hackers". In Germany we have the CCC, the chaos communication club (you might know the chaos communication congress). Their mission statement is the hacker ethic
>Make public data available, protect private data.
>To protect the privacy of the individual and to strengthen the freedom of the information which concern the public the yet last point was added.
It was best summarized by one of the CCC speakers on the topic of "Celebgate". It was across the lines of "ofcourse you can look at it, but then you're just an asshole"
Intimate pictures of another person are private data and should only be accessible to people the person consented to.
edit: Ok the definition on wikipedia actually differs with the translation
>The term is also often misused to describe non 'revenge' scenarios, including nonconsensual pornography distributed by hackers or by individuals seeking profit or notoriety.
Well thats dark
> German High Court made a May 2014 ruling that intimate photographs of partners should be deleted if the partner so requests.[112]
Of course my eyes have a log function. It's called my brain.
And how that's relevant to the simple physical discussion of your claim to ownership of all particles with which you've ever come into contact is beyond me.
I would normally not repsond that long, but your account is old enough to not be a troll.
Do you really mean what you say here? I am talking about it being morally wrong to make pictures of you to share with someone else if you do not consent. You brain does not have a print function.
Is this a misunderstanding because you still havent realized that I am not talking about photons but photos?
No. I have to believe that you are being intentionally obtuse.
You are essentially taking the position that anywhere you go, I am suddenly not permitted to photograph that place without your specific consent.
This is the obvious position of tyrants. Its what every corrupt or brutal police officer says to us when we use cameras for defense.
Then, you are taking the position that somehow, your position is actually a bulwark against dystopia.
I don't make a distinction, for the purposes of my basic, fundamental human rights (such as to the fruits of my vision, including journalism) between photons and photos.
I am unable to understand any consistent way to apply your position that doesn't include a claim that the literal, physical particles that bounce off or you and into my sensor are somehow your property.
This is just an absurd position on its face. I don't know why I'm still arguing with you.
Fortunately, we live in a physical world and you are unable to interrupt the basic principles of physical reality, including the fact that photos come into my position regardless of your "consent". Thus, I'll just take your photo, I won't ask consent, and we'll all live with that.
If you've been trained to draw or paint, it certainly does.
So is it morally wrong to draw or paint without consent?
I do tend to agree with you, if we're talking about surveillance of the weak in the panopticon. But if we're talking about surveillance of the powerful, in the course of protecting human rights generally, I'd say that anything goes.
