DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Penny Can
HTML https://pennycan.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Photography
*****************************************************
#Post#: 19314--------------------------------------------------
Beware the Coming War Against Personal Photography and Video
DIR By: Mac
Date: May 21, 2013, 11:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Interesting post
HTML http://petapixel.com/2013/05/20/beware-the-coming-war-against-personal-photography-and-video/
[glow=red,2,300]Beware the Coming War Against Personal
Photography and Video[/glow]
--- Quote ---
> Are you ready for the imagery war — the war against personal
photography and capturing of video? You’d better be.
>
> The title of this piece actually isn’t entirely accurate. In
some ways, this war isn’t just coming, it’s already begun.
Forces are lining up on both sides, under the radar for most of
us so far, but preparing for action. And right now, if I had to
place a bet (cash, not bitcoins, please), I’d reluctantly have
to predict the anti-imagery folks have the better chance of
winning.
>
> There are many facets to this struggle, and they interact in
complicated and sometimes even seemingly contradictory ways.
It’s largely a battle pitting technology against a range of
personal sensibilities — and politics will be playing an
enormous role.
>
> And please note the following well — if we techies attempt to
argue that no significant relevant issues actually exist, if we
are perceived to be arrogant in our reactions to the various
concerns being expressed, we are likely to be steamrolled by the
opposition.
>
> I said there were contradictory forces in play, and man, do I
mean it.
>
>
> In the aftermath of the Boston bombings — cameras were
everywhere there — which while horrendous and tragic, killed and
injured fewer people than just a few days of “routine” gun
violence here in the USA, we’re hearing the predictable calls
for vastly expanded government-operated video surveillance
networks, even though virtually every study shows that while
these systems may be useful in solving crimes after the fact,
they are of little to no use in preventing crime or terrorism in
the first place. This has proven true even in cities like
London, where there’s a camera focused on pretty much every
individual pimple on each Londoner’s face.
>
> In some cities, like New York, the surveillance-industrial
complex has its fangs deeply into government for the big bucks.
It’s there we heard the Police Commissioner — just hours ago,
really — claim that “privacy is off the table.”
>
> And of course, there’s the rise of wearable cameras and
microphones by law enforcement, generally bringing praise from
people who assume they will reduce police misconduct, but also
dangerously ignoring a host of critical questions.
>
> Will officers be able to choose when the video is running? How
will the video be protected from tampering? How long will it be
archived? Can it be demanded by courts? Divorce lawyers?
Insurance companies? Can it be enhanced and used to trigger
prosecutions of new crimes, perhaps based on items in private
homes captured on video when officers enter? What will be the
penalties when clips of these videos, often involving people in
personal situations of high drama and embarrassment, often
through no fault of their own, leak onto video sharing sites?
>
> All of this and more is the gung-ho, government surveillance
side of the equation.
>
>
> But what about the personal photography and video side? What
of individual or corporate use of these technologies in public
and private spaces?
>
> Will the same politicians promoting government surveillance in
all its glory take a similar stance toward nongovernmental
applications?
>
> Writing already on the wall suggests not.
>
> Inklings of the battles to come are already visible, if you
know where to look.
>
> The push-backs against Google Street View — more pronounced
outside the USA to date but always simmering in the background —
are one obvious example. Even though this imagery is captured
either from public thoroughfares or with explicit permission,
this extremely useful service has generated considerable angst,
and even though the concerns are way overblown, we can’t deny
the angst itself is real and of political note.
>
> An ironic side note. People not infrequently send me emails
asking if I can tell them how to have their homes removed from
Street View. I point them at the established procedure, but I
always mention that having a gap in the imagery where your home
should be is more likely to attract attention to it than
anything else. That never seems to dissuade them, however. We’re
dealing with emotion, not logic.
>
>
> Governments — while ever expanding their own surveillance
regimes — can be extremely antagonistic to personal photography.
>
> Only recently has a broad right for individuals to record
police activities in public places been established by courts,
and trying to exercise that right can still net you a club
across the face and a trip to a cell. Individuals are routinely
harassed when taking hobby photos of railroads, or bridges, or
storefronts — or pretty much anything these days, based on
asserted (but generally unsupportable) security or privacy
grounds.
>
> Anti-paparazzi laws restricting personal photography have
begun appearing, as have a variety of laws aimed at the
perverted practice of “upskirting” — both classes of laws often
subject to much broader interpretation by overzealous
authorities.
>
> Laws have been proposed restricting aerial photography in
general, and drone-based video capture in particular (the latter
already seeing considerable political traction).
>
> And as an outgrowth of parental concerns (particularly
regarding third-party Internet postings of associated still and
video photography) there are efforts underway to restrict public
photography of children by other than their parents — in a wide
variety of public locales — a topic with a particularly powerful
influence on politicians, we should remember.
>
>
> Laymen often assume that if you’re in a public place, you can
legally do pretty much whatever you want in these sorts of
contexts.
>
> But that’s not always true, and is subject to the whims of our
increasingly toxic political environment.
>
> For example, many people believe that you can legally,
secretly record conversations in public. But this varies state
by state. In California, for example, under most circumstances
you cannot legally record a conversation, even in public
settings, unless all parties to the conversation agree. This
holds true regardless of the recording medium — anything from an
old tape machine to the latest wearable video device.
>
> This holds true in mobile environments like personal cars as
well, though governmental regulatory focus in that respect is
more likely to be aimed initially at perceived cognitive
distraction issues.
>
> At the federal level, there is already a concerted push to
tightly regulate both handheld and hands-free devices, with a
special emphasis on any devices in the visual field that can be
used for texting, display of movies, or pretty much anything
else. The irony here is that while one could argue that, for
example, a wearable GPS mapping display would be less
distracting than glancing over at a dash-mounted screen, the
capabilities of these devices to engage in a broad range of
other potentially more distracting activities will likely
attract the attention of insurance companies and regulators
(this is actually already a topic of discussion among both
groups).
>
>
> There is in fact something of a possible worst case scenario
that we would be foolish to ignore. While techies and many
others will be enamored with and responsible in their use of
wearable video/audio gear like Google Glass, the potential
exists for this class of technology in mass deployment to
trigger significant political and regulatory backlash that could
negatively affect other types of photography as well —
everything from expensive cameras to the image capturing
capabilities of cellphones.
>
> To understand this risk we must remember that politicians
generally take the path of least resistance with the highest
“CYA” potential.
>
> While spy-cams and other similar tech have long existed, the
widespread availability of wearable gear outside that context
(note we’re not talking only about Google Glass, but the
inevitable cheap knock-offs that will not meet Google standards)
could, for example, trigger nervous parents’ worst fears.
>
> There will be a significant percentage of the population —
including in stores, restaurants, other businesses, or wherever,
who will be concerned that in the restroom, or the gym, or the
strategy meeting, or wherever, that they just aren’t sure that
the guy with the glasses isn’t actually recording or streaming
at that moment. People who have heard stories of malware
accessing webcams without lighting the activity lights may never
quite trust such signals again.
>
> One would hope that politeness, common sense, and evolving
voluntary social conventions would deal with these issues
appropriately, reducing the pressure for governmental
involvement.
>
> But again, we’re dealing here with emotion more than logic,
and emotion makes laws. Bad laws usually, but laws nonetheless.
And laws are often written with the minority of people who are
bad actors in mind, not the bulk of reasonable folks.
>
> We all still end up having to live with these laws, in any
case.
>
> I don’t have a “magic wand” solution for this situation.
>
> My gut feeling though is that we’d be making an enormous
mistake by appearing arrogant about these matters.
>
> Already, in various venues where enthusiastic supporters of
such technology gather, the primary attitude most visibly
espoused has been to dismiss those persons expressing concerns
about these technologies as being “out of touch” or easily
ignored or beneath contempt.
>
> If you really want to have politicians and regulators come
down like a ton of bricks not only on this technology, but on
other aspects of personal photography as well, then by all means
continue with that demeanor.
>
> On the other hand, if you’d prefer a more beneficial outcome
all around, I’d strongly urge putting aside any arrogance, and
instead working with others to engage politicians and regulators
in reasoned, logical discussions that actually address their
concerns (whether we personally feel that those concerns are
valid or not) in a cooperative way. Otherwise, we’re likely
setting ourselves up for a big fall.
>
> It would be ironic indeed if in the war against personal
photography and video, those of us wanting the maximal possible
photographic freedom allowed our own swagger to effectively
point our own “weapons” at our own heads.
>
> About the author: Lauren Weinstein is a technology systems and
policy analyst based in Los Angeles. He focuses on issues
related to the Internet, privacy, and the interaction of
technology with society.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 19339--------------------------------------------------
Re: Beware the Coming War Against Personal Photography and Video
DIR By: Chiprocks1
Date: May 22, 2013, 5:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It took awhile to read, but it was worth it. Great article. +1
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1