Ask permission before posting to Social Media?

catallus

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Indeed. E.g. the personal responsibility of taking a photograph and uploading it to the 'net.

If it makes you feel smart to wilfully miss the point of this conversation then of course you're right.

y0ssar1an22

i dont know if it was already mentioned but there is a way to stop tags of you going public. you have to 'ok' the pic before you will be tagged in it. cant exactly remember how to do this as my fb is long gone.
i hate the fact there is always someone there recording. makes me feel ill at ease.

Femme_Fatale

catallus wrote: »

If it makes you feel smart to wilfully miss the point of this conversation

I am only saying when a person chooses to do something that they do not have to do, then they are responsible for it. How you think that doesn't apply to people who take photos of strangers and share them on social media is beyond me.
I have acknowledged that people who put themselves in a compromising position in this social media-entrenched culture are foolish, but I cannot see how all the responsibility for a picture of them being taken lies with them when it is a choice that is made by someone else.

Maximus Alexander

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I am only saying when a person chooses to do something that they do not have to do, then they are responsible for it. How you think that doesn't apply to people who take photos of strangers and share them on social media is beyond me.
I have acknowledged that people who put themselves in a compromising position in this social media-entrenched culture are foolish, but I cannot see how all the responsibility for a picture of them being taken lies with them when it is a choice that is made by someone else.

I'm not sure I see your point at all. Are you saying that the content of the photo, or what you are doing in it, is not relevant. That it is the mere act of them photographing you at all that you take issue with?

If someone snaps a photo of you strolling innocently down O'Connell Street, do you have a problem with that?

Tin Foil Hat

MadsL wrote: »

Is this too much to ask? Without dwelling on any particular recent incidents and mindful of EP this weekend; why is it that people think they can post pictures of you to social media without your permission?

Could I make a plea that if your are at a party, gig, event, rave or festival and you see someone in an awesome outfit, or getting into a 'scrape', PLEASE ask their permission before posting to social media. Some people have professional lives outside of partying, and you may cause them great difficulty by posting without permission.

I remember a time when you used to ask people before taking a photo, now it seems that anyone is fair game if out in public.

Is it too much to ask to be thoughtful and just ASK?

We are all Z-list celebrities now, and anyone can be the paparazzi.
Sucks, doesn't it?

Stereomaniac

Yes and no. Sometimes it can suck (literally, as in the case of Slane Girl), and other times it can be cool. But, if you do something in public, you have to be prepared for the consequences.

catallus

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I am only saying when a person chooses to do something that they do not have to do, then they are responsible for it. How you think that doesn't apply to people who take photos of strangers and share them on social media is beyond me.
I have acknowledged that people who put themselves in a compromising position in this social media-entrenched culture are foolish, but I cannot see how all the responsibility for a picture of them being taken lies with them when it is a choice that is made by someone else.

Femme, no offence, but you seem to be tying yourself up in knots in attempt to absolve the person who is being photographed of any responsibility whatsoever by focussing exclusively on the person who takes the snap.

Femme_Fatale

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I'm not sure I see your point at all. Are you saying that the content of the photo, or what you are doing in it, is not relevant. That it is the mere act of them photographing you at all that you take issue with?

No no I'm referring to people making out that a person acting the eejit who gets photographed/splashed all over social media is entirely to blame for the latter development, when someone else had a choice not to photograph them/put it on social media. I am not saying you have no role to play if you choose to act the twat in public though, but to suggest the photographer/uploader is blameless is ludicrous.

If someone snaps a photo of you strolling innocently down O'Connell Street, do you have a problem with that?

If it was part of a crowd shot on O'Connell Street for a newspaper article or whatever, no. If it was just me isolated, without my prior permission, yeh I'd find that disconcerting. I assume most people would.

Femme_Fatale

catallus wrote: »

attempt to absolve the person who is being photographed of any responsibility whatsoever

I'm clearly not doing that.

catallus

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I'm clearly not doing that.

You kinda are.

P_1

The thing I don't get is that when the people doing stupid things don't actually harm anyone else with their actions, people still feel the need to document their actions and open the person up to ridicule. Is that really necessary?

Maximus Alexander

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

No no I'm referring to people making out that a person acting the eejit who gets photographed/splashed all over social media is entirely to blame for the latter development, when someone else had a choice not to photograph them/put it on social media. I am not saying you have no role to play if you choose to act the twat in public though, but to suggest the photographer/uploader is blameless is ludicrous.

People photograph and talk about things they find interesting or amusing all the time. Most of the time it is not done with malice, it's just part of being a social animal.

Your actions are not the responsibility of the person taking or sharing the photograph. It is completely up to you to take responsibility for your actions and avoid doing embarrassing things when you know that everyone carries a camera and an internet connection in their pocket these days.

If someone who is an acquaintance of yours takes a photo of you in a compromising situation and uploads it, knowing that you don't want them to, that is a breech of trust and makes them a bit of a dick. But it is still your responsibility to choose carefully the people that you allow to see you in compromising situations.

catallus

P_1 wrote: »

The thing I don't get is that when the people doing stupid things don't actually harm anyone else with their actions, people still feel the need to document their actions and open the person up to ridicule. Is that really necessary?

Necessity isn't the issue.

Photos get uploaded.

Is it an adult response to kick against the fact that you have been snapped rather than face the responsibility of what you've been photographed doing?

P_1

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

If someone who is an acquaintance of yours takes a photo of you in a compromising situation and uploads it, knowing that you don't want them to, that is a breech of trust and makes them a bit of a dick. But it is still your responsibility to choose carefully the people that you allow to see you in compromising situations.

That's all well and good but what happens when it's a total stranger rather then an acquaintance who decides to play the shutterbug?

Femme_Fatale

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

People photograph and talk about things they find interesting or amusing all the time. Most of the time it is not done with malice, it's just part of being a social animal.

This is about when people do so deliberately and with malice though.

Your actions are not the responsibility of the person taking or sharing the photograph.

But taking the photograph with malicious intent is the responsibility of the person who takes it.

Hmmm... very telling indeed of people to see no responsibility on the part of people who choose to take a photograph to upload to the 'net.

Maximus Alexander

P_1 wrote: »

That's all well and good but what happens when it's a total stranger rather then an acquaintance who decides to play the shutterbug?

Well then they're not even a dick, they're just a person who saw something funny and shared it with friends. That's how humans work, and I touched on that in the part of my post that you didn't include in the quote.

Maximus Alexander

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But taking the photograph with malicious intent is the responsibility of the person who takes it.

Hmmm... very telling indeed of people to see no responsibility on the part of people who choose to take a photograph to upload to the 'net.

I genuinely don't even understand what this means. What are you saying they are responsible for?

Is this not a meaningless statement, like "People who put things in buckets are responsible for things being in buckets"?

Femme_Fatale

catallus wrote: »

Is it an adult response to kick against the fact that you have been snapped rather than face the responsibility of what you've been photographed doing?

No. But there would be nothing wrong with being pissed off with someone for choosing to take a photo of you with malicious intention, while at the same time regretting your behaviour.

Phoebas

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

If you don't do things you are ashamed of in public, there's no problem.

It has nothing to do with shame.
You mightn't want pictures taken with your top off at the beach or letting your hair down at a nightclub circulating around your work colleagues.

I think the OP is just calling for some basic good manners here and a little bit of awareness about who will see what you post.

Femme_Fatale

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I genuinely don't even understand what this means. What are you saying they are responsible for?

Jesus. How on earth is it difficult to understand that a person who makes a conscious decision to take a photograph of someone in an uncompromising position for the purposes of uploading to the 'net... is responsible for that action?

Maximus Alexander

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Jesus. How on earth is it difficult to understand that a person who makes a conscious decision to take a photograph of someone in an uncompromising position for the purposes of uploading to the 'net... is responsible for that action?

Is that not a redundant, self-evident and pointless statement though?

Femme_Fatale

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Is that not a redundant, self-evident and pointless statement though?

Not when people are saying those taking the pictures are in no way to blame and the blame only lies with the person acting the eejit in public (who also shares some of the blame).
Yes it is obvious, but some people still can't/won't grasp it.

freshpopcorn

If your at a concert/event and you do something such as run around without clothes on/carry out a sexual act in public. Even without social media people can take a photo of someone in a compromising positions and use it against them. Whilst it might be immoral of the person who took the photo if the person acted appropriately in the first place. They wouldn't have being the opportunity to take the photo.

Maximus Alexander

Phoebas wrote: »

It has nothing to do with shame.
You mightn't want pictures taken with your top off at the beach or letting your hair down at a nightclub circulating around your work colleagues.

I think the OP is just calling for some basic good manners here and a little bit of awareness about who will see what you post.

Sure, I get that. In this day an age you might as well be asking the Earth to stop orbiting the Sun. The only solution is not to take your top off at a beach if you don't want those photos circulating.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Not when people are saying those taking the pictures are in no way to blame and the blame only lies with the person acting the eejit in public (who also shares some of the blame).
Yes it is obvious, but some people still can't/won't grasp it.

I don't think anyone is saying that.

catallus

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

No. But there would be nothing wrong with being pissed off with someone for choosing to take a photo of you with malicious intention, while at the same time regretting your behaviour.

Nothing wrong with being pissed off at all, but all this talk of "maliciously" posting photos is a bit nerdish imo.

Phoebas wrote: »

It has nothing to do with shame.
You mightn't want pictures taken with your top off at the beach or letting your hair down at a nightclub circulating around your work colleagues.

I think the OP is just calling for some basic good manners here and a little bit of awareness about who will see what you post.

The OP was asking for organised social engineering, via overt and aggressive pressure, to shame people into refraining from posting photos of potentially vulnerable people. Do you think that is an acceptable thing to ask for?

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Jesus. How on earth is it difficult to understand that a person who makes a conscious decision to take a photograph of someone in an uncompromising position for the purposes of uploading to the 'net... is responsible for that action?

You are coming across as a pedant. I'm sure he understands that a person who takes a photo is physically responsible for taking the picture, you are intentionally muddying the waters here.

oppenheimer1

MadsL wrote: »

Is this too much to ask? Without dwelling on any particular recent incidents and mindful of EP this weekend; why is it that people think they can post pictures of you to social media without your permission?

Could I make a plea that if your are at a party, gig, event, rave or festival and you see someone in an awesome outfit, or getting into a 'scrape', PLEASE ask their permission before posting to social media. Some people have professional lives outside of partying, and you may cause them great difficulty by posting without permission.

I remember a time when you used to ask people before taking a photo, now it seems that anyone is fair game if out in public.

Is it too much to ask to be thoughtful and just ASK?

There is no expectation of privacy in a public place.

Femme_Fatale

catallus wrote: »

Nothing wrong with being pissed off at all, but all this talk of "maliciously" posting photos is a bit nerdish imo.

What has "nerdish" got to do with it? If someone decides "I'm gonna take a picture of that drunk person acting the tit, upload it to social media for maximum exposure, and possibly ruin their life" they are obviously behaving maliciously. Would you do it?

I am not muddying waters whatsoever. I am only contesting your assertion that no responsibility lies with the person who takes and uploads the picture/video when they have the choice to do so/not to do so.

"They made me do it" is a child's defence.

Phoebas

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Sure, I get that. In this day an age you might as well be asking the Earth to stop orbiting the Sun. The only solution is not to take your top off at a beach if you don't want those photos circulating.

I wouldn't be so defeatist.
We're at the start of a learning curve regarding social media. I predict that the social media platforms that we will be using five years from now are the ones that will have privacy at their core.
In the meantime, we need individuals to show a bit of restraint before posting.

MadsL

catallus wrote: »

Nothing wrong with being pissed off at all, but all this talk of "maliciously" posting photos is a bit nerdish imo.

The OP was asking for organised social engineering, via overt and aggressive pressure, to shame people into refraining from posting photos of potentially vulnerable people. Do you think that is an acceptable thing to ask

we use overt and aggressive social pressure to prevent people from being dicks on boards.ie don't we?

Maximus Alexander

Phoebas wrote: »

I wouldn't be so defeatist.
We're at the start of a learning curve regarding social media. I predict that the social media platforms that we will be using five years from now are the ones that will have privacy at their core.
In the meantime, we need individuals to show a bit of restraint before posting.

I think it's quite naive to believe anyone will ever be able to control the flow of information on the internet.

I think it is even more naive to expect the whole of society to show restraint.

Phoebas

catallus wrote: »

The OP was asking for organised social engineering, via overt and aggressive pressure, to shame people into refraining from posting photos of potentially vulnerable people. Do you think that is an acceptable thing to ask for?

I didn't read the OP that way. At all.

catallus

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

What has "nerdish" got to do with it? If someone decides "I'm gonna take a picture of that drunk person acting the tit, upload it to social media for maximum exposure, and possibly ruin their life" they are obviously behaving maliciously. Would you do it?

I am not muddying waters whatsoever. I am only contesting your assertion that no responsibility lies with the person who takes and uploads the picture/video when they have the choice to do so/not to do so.

Just because a person is snapped doing something stupid/illegal/embarrassing/socially ruinous does not make them a victim. It doesn't make them less culpable for their behaviour and it certainly doesn't justify accusing a photographer of being a bully or criminal or bad person, or malicious.

You need to take a step back and not get so personal about this whole thing.

Phoebas

Phoebas wrote: »

I didn't read the OP that way. At all.

Nor did I, crazy post !

P_1

MadsL wrote: »

we use overt and aggressive social pressure to prevent people from being dicks on boards.ie don't we?

Exactly. Isn't there a thread here for stupid stuff that people put up on Facebook with the main rule being that nobody posting the stupid stuff gets identified.

Femme_Fatale

catallus wrote: »

Just because a person is snapped doing something stupid/illegal/embarrassing/socially ruinous does not make them a victim.

IMO it can do.

It doesn't make them less culpable for their behaviour

I agree it doesn't.

and it certainly doesn't justify accusing a photographer of being a bully or criminal or bad person, or malicious.

IMO it can do - very strange to view e.g. the Slane girl photographer/uploader as not having malicious intent.

And that's the way it will stay - a difference of opinion.

But nobody forces anyone to take such photographs and upload them to the internet, thus making the responsibility a shared one.

Why is it about embarrassing photos ? the OP was merely making a point that it is wrong to post (any) pic without the persons consent which I completely agree with.

Maximus Alexander

Deleted User wrote: »

Why is it about embarrassing photos ? the OP was merely making a point that it is wrong to post (any) pic without the persons consent which I completely agree with.

And I completely disagree. As does the law of the land.

Phoebas

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I think it's quite naive to believe anyone will ever be able to control the flow of information on the internet.

I think it is even more naive to expect the whole of society to show restraint.

The internet is young and we're all still finding our feet with it. Id say its too early to say for sure how it will evolve.

MadsL

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

And I completely disagree. As does the law of the land.

I am talking about manners, not law. There is no law forcing you to apologise if you step on someone's toe, but it is polite to do so.

Phoebas

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

There is no expectation of privacy in a public place.

Its not a binary thing.
If you pick your nose on Grafton Street, you can't expect that you won't be seen, but you might feel invaded if the video of it appears on a TV hidden camera show.

Roohan

catallus wrote: »

Just because a person is snapped doing something stupid/illegal/embarrassing/socially ruinous does not make them a victim. It doesn't make them less culpable for their behaviour and it certainly doesn't justify accusing a photographer of being a bully or criminal or bad person, or malicious.

You need to take a step back and not get so personal about this whole thing.

I agree with this

catallus

Phoebas wrote: »

The internet is young and we're all still finding our feet with it. Id say its too early to say for sure how it will evolve.

And this is the most interesting point about what the OP brought up.

If I were a betting man, I'd say it may in time lead to a development of a more puritanical society, not online but IRL. People will curb their own behaviour due to the likelihood of being seen online, if you get me.

Maximus Alexander

MadsL wrote: »

I am talking about manners, not law. There is no law forcing you to apologise if you step on someone's toe, but it is polite to do so.

And I still don't agree. People put photos of me on Facebook all the time and I don't think they have bad manners.

If they put something up that I had a problem with, and they knew I would have a problem with it, then I would consider that bad manners. Or malice.

RDM_83 again

To my mind in a public space there is a big difference between photographing and uploading something of somebody who has by their intentional actions created a situation where they are remarkable, and situations where the person photographed did not set out to create a situation where they are remarkable.

e.g S. Girl or in positive terms something like somebody in a cool costume, in both these situations the photographed person is deliberately doing something that will cause "interest" (intoxication etc isn't a legitimate excuse to avoid any other negative situations so I don;t think it flies)

What is more complicated is where the person by no choice or deliberate action of their own becomes "interesting", e.g something like the Guy slipping on ice behind the newsreader or a wardrobe malfunction moment.

Ps Femme Fatale if you think random photo's in public is bad, have you ever looked at sites like "Nice Guys of OKCupid" (just sort of curious about how you would view that?)

my my my

how can police update technology when they have to save 230 million pounds every year, its not te private sectoer, aka no encryption

Femme_Fatale

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ps Femme Fatale if you think random photo's in public is bad, have you ever looked at sites like "Nice Guys of OKCupid" (just sort of curious about how you would view that?)

Not sure I said I think random photos in public are bad - there's nothing random IMO about choosing someone specific to photograph and then uploading that image to social media.

I didn't know what Nice Guys of OKCupid was, so I looked it up. I don't get it.

Phoebas

catallus wrote: »

And this is the most interesting point about what the OP brought up.

If I were a betting man, I'd say it may in time lead to a development of a more puritanical society, not online but IRL. People will curb their own behaviour due to the likelihood of being seen online, if you get me.

There's some quote somewhere about us being made prisoners by our own freedom. Somebody 'll remember it properly and post it....

catallus

Phoebas wrote: »

There's some quote somewhere about us being made prisoners by our own freedom. Somebody 'll remember it properly and post it....

Why should a man love his fetters, though they be made of gold?

wil

MadsL wrote: »

we use overt and aggressive social pressure to prevent people from being dicks on boards.ie don't we?

As you know there is a fair bit of impolite behaviour on here too, but as boards reps regularly point out, it is a private company and there is no automatic freedom of speech so perhaps it is not a good example within your argument.

So far I have only seen reference to the photographed and the photographer, little mention has been made of the other third parties to this discussion - the facilitaters (Facebook, Twitter etc) and the consumers.

The facilitaters also being private companies from other jurisdictions have their own agendas - mostly money, so as already witnessed are slow to remove anything unless it has a negative financial consequence.
And not only that but they have suceeded pretty much in changing public attitudes and standards in relation to the whole concept of privacy.

You cannot rely on people to adhere to your standards when you already know many dont even apply them to their own personal lives. Facebook etc reinforce and encourage this behaviour and attitude because it is of benefit to their whole (current) business model.

The whole concept of privacy for many people is almost gone out the window. Many live in a clear perspex world and distribute it to all and sundry, they are going to care less about your privacy

Once upon a time if somone found an embarassing photo of themselves, they tore it up, end of story. Nobody bothered, nobody stuck the pieces back together and published in the paper (unless it was a pap with celeb scandal) Today it's public, searchable, promoted and distributed in one click.

And then theres the biggest culprits in all this sorry story - the consumers.
Would you bother about that embarrassing night out photo if you knew nobody could be bothered looking at or for it. Twitter/FB etc wouldnt exist if people didnt pass everything on, tag it, retweet and rehash stuff ad nauseum. Embarrassments would become history just as memories.

Even as we all type here we are safe in the knowledge that our mispelings, misunderstandings, whines, gripes and bores all become part of that bigger concept of publacy.

Unless of course, you still have me on ignore:)

RDM_83 again

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Not sure I said I think random photos in public are bad - there's nothing random IMO about choosing someone specific to photograph and then uploading that image to social media.

I didn't know what Nice Guys of OKCupid was, so I looked it up. I don't get it.

Oops by random I meant the fact that these are target of opportunity snaps rather than people actually setting out to photograph that person.

I brought up that site because its interesting how its a site that generally considered "ok", as the people being mocked are have put up the photo's themselves and its they're own responses to the questions.
Does the self publishing of material change the morality of it subsequent re-use by others?
This photography question is about snaps in Public, looking at the word, public has always been about being viewed by 'all the people' its just that modern technology makes this actually possible!