Jump to content

Menu

Will the rise of face-recognition software cause a resurgence of the veil?


JennifersLost
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm becoming a total curmudgeon about where technology is headed. I don't do much that's interesting, so I figure I'm pretty anonymous, but someone today was telling me that a friend had snapped her picture at a party and uploaded it to Facebook, where she got tagged and forwarded. Another family member halfway across the continent ended up seeing and commenting on the photo, which is the only way my friend even knew it existed. She was pretty upset, just by the invasion of privacy of it all.

 

With face recognition becoming more widespread and the advent of Google glasses, etc., it occurred to me that the easiest way not to get your photo snapped or have all your info automatically available to any stranger who sees your face is....not to show your face.

 

Dh and I were talking about what a resurgence of the veil would look like. Seems to me you could go fairly translucent and shimmery and still mess up most software.

 

Not much could compel me to wear a bunch of cloth over my face, but a desire for privacy is almost enough...:)

 

What do you think? Is the veil due to make a comeback? What will it look like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how it would help in the case of someone tagging you on Facebook. Your face doesn't have to be visible for someone to tag you if they know that is you in the picture. No, I honestly don't foresee lots of people wearing a veil to try to keep themselves from being tagged in pictures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd probably go for a face mask like in the movies (the kind that make me look like another person). Then, when my face is scanned by one of those Facebook cameras, it won't register as me when they tag it and put it on the internet with all "my" information. I also think this idea will be much more popular with men than wearing a veil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh....no, I don't see that happening at all. You don't even have to be IN a picture for someone to tag you in Facebook. They could tag you in a photo of your kids, your friends, a celebrity you like...heck, they can even tag you in a post.

 

But honestly, I don't see the big deal. If you're on FB and you don't want anyone to see photos you're tagged in, set your privacy settings so that it doesn't happen. And if you're not on FB...nobody can tag you in anything. They can, however, post any photos they want to of you, and if someone doesn't tell you, you won't ever have a clue. So a veil would essentially be useless. Especially because someone will snap a photo of you, then tag you in FB simply BECAUSE you're wearing a veil.

 

So my advice is to give up and smile pretty for the cameras. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Set your facebook to require your approval for all tags. Then you are not tagged in the picture unless you click ok after reviewing it. Easy peasy solution. Your picture will still be there on their account but not linked to your account. That, and nice friends who don't post crappy pictures of you and who are savvy enough to control their own social media settings, is the very most any of us can hope for in the era of the camera phone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm becoming a total curmudgeon about where technology is headed. I don't do much that's interesting, so I figure I'm pretty anonymous, but someone today was telling me that a friend had snapped her picture at a party and uploaded it to Facebook, where she got tagged and forwarded. Another family member halfway across the continent ended up seeing and commenting on the photo, which is the only way my friend even knew it existed. She was pretty upset, just by the invasion of privacy of it all.

 

 

 

You can be notified if someone tags you in a photo, you can untag yourself at any time, and you can adjust your settings so that you have to approve it when someone tags you. Learning about Facebook's privacy settings and adjusting them based on personal preferences seems like a more practical solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Set your facebook to require your approval for all tags. Then you are not tagged in the picture unless you click ok after reviewing it. Easy peasy solution. Your picture will still be there on their account but not linked to your account. That, and nice friends who don't post crappy pictures of you and who are savvy enough to control their own social media settings, is the very most any of us can hope for in the era of the camera phone.

 

This. I approve nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think so, but Michael Jackson had his kids wear veils. So maybe if it becomes a trend among celebrities, then it will catch on.

And he was such a lovely example of a sane human being. :p OP- no I don't. Most people, unless they're paranoid about something, don't really care. I would sport a fake beard before I wore a veil. Actually, as I'm getting older, it might not be so fake. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we really need is draconian privacy laws, with a big hole cut in the first amendment to make room for them, enabled by a massive federal database that will monitor all social media and other internet, mail, and telephone communications, with automated flagging and prosecution of unauthorized privacy violations. Maybe the NSA can help out with that.

 

Meanwhile, we need everyone to wear those Anonymous Guy Fawkes masks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me more about these FB tags. Can people only be tagged if they have a FB account? If I don't have one, but someone puts my photo on their wall, can they label me with a tag?

 

 

The purpose of the tag is to link the picture to the tagged person's Facebook page. But it is possible to tag an unlinked person. For example I have a lot of old family photographs and posted a lot of them for cousins to see. I "tagged" the various long-dead people in the pictures, but of course they aren't linked. You can also lost non-Facebook people inthe description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's food for thought. This was a recent case (sorry I can't be troubled to look up the citation). Restraining and other no-contact orders prohibit the person against whom the order is issues from contacting the protected person secondhand, by asking someone to forward a message to them. However they can talk to any other person and not be in violation if that person forwards the message, no matter how foreseeable it was that the third person would forward the message.

 

So one enterprising stalker forwarded a very unpleasant, abusive message to a person who had a no-contact order by forwarding it to every last Facebook friend she had, and friends of those friends, making it statistically certain that someone would forward it to her, which is of course what happened. The judge ruled that this wasn't a violation of the no-contact order.

 

Thus stalkers may continue harassing their victims with impunity thanks to social media, more easily than dropping a letter in a mailbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me more about these FB tags. Can people only be tagged if they have a FB account? If I don't have one, but someone puts my photo on their wall, can they label me with a tag?

 

 

They can label you, but if you don't have an FB account, you won't know about it. Tagging just means that whatever photo you were tagged in appears on your friends' news feeds, and they see it. Unless, of course, you have your privacy settings to where that can't happen. If you don't have an FB account (and therefore, no FB privacy settings), people can label you (or your kids, if they are in the photo), and all of that person's friends will see it for sure.

 

When my friends post photos with my kids in them (at a birthday party or something), they tag me in the photo so I can have a copy of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the veil coming back, but I do see people becoming more careful about whom they associate with and what they do in public. More may engage a PR firm or a lawyer. I know a few people who are extremely upset about their current appearance, addresses, vehicles, and children's photos being exposed to their stalkers, by extended family members who didn't ask permission before posting. I think privacy will become more protected, and I'll bet facebook will have to put in an approval procedure so that those who are in the photo give their approval before it is posted.

 

 

It's an issue. I know of a woman whose abusive ex-husband found her because someone posted a pic and city/state without permission on facebook. That nearly cost her life!

 

People really have NO right to post a picture of someone else on the web without written permission. Post pics of your own minor children because you hold the legal right to do so. Don't do it to other people without their consent. You never know who you will cause great grief and harm.

 

Generally, I find people too flippant about using other persons' images.

 

I am not certain that veiling will be the answer. Eldest ds, the budding computer programmer, says that he thinks eventually someone will make software that you can run on the web that will search for you pic and infect the host with a scrambler that will encrypt the pixels and distort the image so that it's unrecognizable. Whoever comes up with that will make many millions!

 

Faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Uh yeah that makes me crazy mad. I don't do Facebook, so there is that. BUT what makes me nuts is seeing people video recording or taking pictures of a class that my kid is in without asking me. How on earth do I know what they are going to do with that?! My son was in a gymnastics class. Some yahoo was standing there with his phone trying to record it. There is no way a person can just zero in on their own kid in these situations. I stopped going to that gym. But I was very tempted to tell the owners they should consider a policy against stuff like that. It's not right.

 

Years ago I did have a Facebook account. When I signed up, I found my sister. She used my son's picture as her profile picture! She never asked me to do that! I wasn't even on speaking terms with her at that point and she saw my son about 2 times in his life up until that point (he was 5). She barely knew him. I felt like telling her to get he own kids. I wasn't even the one who gave her the picture. grrrrrr

 

 

It's a huge problem. I mean, we'd all like to video the dance recital, the baseball game, Johnny's awards ceremony, etc., but we also have a lot of other people in that video. Prior to social media, these things all went into private collections. They were looked at in the home; amateurs didn't publish their videos and photos for the whole world to see. Professionals went about getting permission to use the images be it for TV or print media. Now, everyone is a "journalist" or "photographer" and they use pictures willy nilly with no thought to the welfare of other people. Facebook and other similar web hosting sites make this a dangerous occupation.

 

The bottom line is that if you don't ask to use it before you do, you could end up in a world of hurting. I know that the woman whose ex attacked her and nearly died, successfully sued the person who put her pic on the web without her permission. Now, some judges would throw it out and say if you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy. However, this judge felt that while in public you can be photographed, but it is still your image, and you do retain control over it so someone cannot publish it without permission; he considered facebook to be publishing.

 

It's a HUGE grey area, and I see both sides of the argument. People really should be able to video or photograph an event in which their child participates. However, I think the same argument can be made that they should use photoshop to blur out the images of those whom they do not have permission to use. One can either contact the other dance parents, or one can only put photos out there of closeups of your own child. With today's software, it's not hard actually to change a background or blur/fade out other faces. I do think that it may come to this as more and more people have security/safety issues they worry about.I know for my student's piano recitals, youtube was just becoming popular right before I closed the studio. For those last few, I told parents that they could not video tape themselves and hired a professional whom parents could purchase copies from which kind of protected everyone since the contract stated that the video was his intellectual/professional property and could not be published by anyone else. We made a sound recording only for everyone to have for free. Parents could take pics of their own child, or the child and me at the piano for their personal use, and I did not take a photo of the entire group except for my own wall. I did not allow the parents to do so either until they got permission from each other and ALL agreed on how it could be used afterward. This way, I didn't end up with parental complaints.

 

Faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the veil coming back, but I do see people becoming more careful about whom they associate with and what they do in public. More may engage a PR firm or a lawyer. I know a few people who are extremely upset about their current appearance, addresses, vehicles, and children's photos being exposed to their stalkers, by extended family members who didn't ask permission before posting. I think privacy will become more protected, and I'll bet facebook will have to put in an approval procedure so that those who are in the photo give their approval before it is posted.

 

Facebook already has an option that a person can check so that they approve anything they are tagged in. That can't stop people from posting photos of other people's kids. Kids can't be tagged in the photo because only people with FB accounts can be tagged, but they can be named in the comment section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Face veils? No.

 

But posting someone else's whereabouts without their permission really can be dangerous.

 

In this day and age, I think we all have to be more vigilant about our own safety because picture posting, etc, is only going to increase. I really don't see any way around it.

 

 

And the sad thing is that many of our acquaintances will not think of these things before posting personal information. That is why facebook, my space, and the like have become so dangerous. Everyone just thinks they have a right to be free with everyone else's personal lives. There is some sort of disconnect in the brain that goes on which causes the filter to completely disengage.

 

Faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Uh yeah that makes me crazy mad. I don't do Facebook, so there is that. BUT what makes me nuts is seeing people video recording or taking pictures of a class that my kid is in without asking me. How on earth do I know what they are going to do with that?! My son was in a gymnastics class. Some yahoo was standing there with his phone trying to record it. There is no way a person can just zero in on their own kid in these situations. I stopped going to that gym. But I was very tempted to tell the owners they should consider a policy against stuff like that.

 

 

I'm surprised the gym permitted photography. The pools where I've worked do not permitted photography, unless photo is only of the person's child. You could include the child's instructor if you get the instrucotr's permission. I haven't seen cameras at kids classes for years. I think mos places I've been have these policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised the gym permitted photography. The pools where I've worked do not permitted photography, unless photo is only of the person's child. You could include the child's instructor if you get the instrucotr's permission. I haven't seen cameras at kids classes for years. I think mos places I've been have these policies.

I've had the opposite experience. It seems to be everywhere. I see releases from professional facilities sometimes, but they don't seem to restrict parents filming or taking photos of classes and performances. Our dance studio prohibits videos and photos during the actual performance, but that's because they sell professional pics and DVDs, and they also cite the safety concern as it is a distraction. But during rehearsals, etc. people are freely videoing and taking pics of their kids and others. Ditto baseball for my son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Uh yeah that makes me crazy mad. I don't do Facebook, so there is that. BUT what makes me nuts is seeing people video recording or taking pictures of a class that my kid is in without asking me. How on earth do I know what they are going to do with that?! My son was in a gymnastics class. Some yahoo was standing there with his phone trying to record it. There is no way a person can just zero in on their own kid in these situations. I stopped going to that gym. But I was very tempted to tell the owners they should consider a policy against stuff like that. It's not right.

 

Years ago I did have a Facebook account. When I signed up, I found my sister. She used my son's picture as her profile picture! She never asked me to do that! I wasn't even on speaking terms with her at that point and she saw my son about 2 times in his life up until that point (he was 5). She barely knew him. I felt like telling her to get he own kids. I wasn't even the one who gave her the picture. grrrrrr

 

Wow, that's weird. I have a personal policy to not post any pics of other people's children. If I want them to have a copy of the shot, I email it directly to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to see this is getting debate. :)

 

For the person who asked about my use of "resurgence" - in Medieval and other "olden times" many women - especially upperclass women - wore veils in public all over Europe for the express purpose of keeping their faces hidden from the prying eyes of strange men. In most of the stories I've read this is something not forced on them, per se, (in other words, it's not a "woman, cover yourself" type thing) but is a social norm and they used their veils because they didn't want just any man to get to see them - especially lower-born men who might...well...leer at them. So the use of a veil in those days was kind of a haughty, upperclass thing. Peasant women showed their faces, although it seems like maids acted like the upper-class women they served, so if a lady veiled herself to go out in public, her maid might very well wear a veil, too.

 

These days we definitely see veils as being forced on women (esp. in the middle-east) and yeah, I certain have no desire to live in that kind of society. But I can see feeling like covering up to get away from prying eyes.

 

Of course, I'm a middle-aged woman in North America, so I can make myself invisible anytime I want to. See - I'm doing it right now....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

These days we definitely see veils as being forced on women (esp. in the middle-east)

 

That seems like a bit of a loaded statement :huh: . FYI, most women CHOOSE to veil for their own religious convictions, choose being the operative word. I chose and it was actually quite liberating. And earned me respect. But I think this falls under a different thread.

 

Anyways....moving on...

 

No one NEEDS facebook. I don't and never will. I don't expect my children will ever need it. If more people pushed back against these new "privacy" rules, then facebook would have to change their MO. Since everyone keeps swallowing the medicine they dose out... well...they will push it as far as they can. They are in this to make $$, remember? They are not doing this as volunteers. So the more people hooked up and the more they know about you, they more they can market and make money off you.

 

And yes, you guessed I am vehemently anti FB. :thumbdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda off topic but I was glad to read in Cosmopolotin this issue that a few States are requiring stalkers and abusive ex's to wear ankle bracelets to alert if they're in a zone they're not supposed to be in. This way the women don't have to change their lives and leave their homes for their own safety when they're not the problem. Brilliant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Washington Post had a scary article the other day about how police are using facial recognition software to search dirvers' license photo databases not only for suspects but also for witnesses. Yes, people have a civic obligation to report crimes they witness to the police but can you imagine Big Brother knocking on your door saying, "We know you were a witness, tell us what you know or get held in contempt by the court."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That seems like a bit of a loaded statement :huh: . FYI, most women CHOOSE to veil for their own religious convictions, choose being the operative word. I chose and it was actually quite liberating. And earned me respect. But I think this falls under a different thread.

 

Your statement is just as loaded and is only an opinion.

 

No one NEEDS facebook. I don't and never will. I don't expect my children will ever need it. If more people pushed back against these new "privacy" rules, then facebook would have to change their MO. Since everyone keeps swallowing the medicine they dose out... well...they will push it as far as they can. They are in this to make $$, remember? They are not doing this as volunteers. So the more people hooked up and the more they know about you, they more they can market and make money off you.

 

And yes, you guessed I am vehemently anti FB. :thumbdown:

 

I don't believe anyone said Facebook is "needed". I really never get the anti-FB sentiments. If you don't like it, don't join. If you find it fun/useful/enjoyable, then join.

 

As far as the thread in general, no I don't believe veils will be coming back into style. I also cannot understand why anyone thinks they have an expectation of privacy when in public, or seems shocked when pictures are taken of their child when in a group event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe anyone said Facebook is "needed". I really never get the anti-FB sentiments. If you don't like it, don't join. If you find it fun/useful/enjoyable, then join.

 

As far as the thread in general, no I don't believe veils will be coming back into style. I also cannot understand why anyone thinks they have an expectation of privacy when in public, or seems shocked when pictures are taken of their child when in a group event.

 

For the most part, I agree with you. However, it's not as simple as "if you don't like Facebook, don't sign up." Even if you don't join, friends can still post your pictures on it, whether they can tag you or not, and people whom you don't want tracking you down can do so. And as someone else pointed out, prior to the advent of social media, photos of people in group events went into shoeboxes and photo albums in closets. Now they can be seen by millions of eyes, both familiar and unfamiliar, friendly and unfriendly, all over the world. It's a little disturbing. It's not something I get my panties in a bunch about, but I can't say it doesn't concern me a little. Slippery slope and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, bluntly: wearing a face veil in the US, like it or not, is a great way to attract extra attention and scrutiny to yourself due to profiling. You will also attract harassment from some in many areas. Let's be serious for a second here. With the exception of short periods of decorative veiling on hats, wedding veils and perhaps widow's funeral veils, veils have never been commonly used in the US. So the Kung Fu's point is spot on- resurgence from what? Antiquity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

For the most part, I agree with you. However, it's not as simple as "if you don't like Facebook, don't sign up." Even if you don't join, friends can still post your pictures on it, whether they can tag you or not, and people whom you don't want tracking you down can do so. And as someone else pointed out, prior to the advent of social media, photos of people in group events went into shoeboxes and photo albums in closets. Now they can be seen by millions of eyes, both familiar and unfamiliar, friendly and unfriendly, all over the world. It's a little disturbing. It's not something I get my panties in a bunch about, but I can't say it doesn't concern me a little. Slippery slope and all.

 

Other than the rare cases where someone is in hiding, I simply don't see why it would concern me if people I don't know see a picture I don't even know exists. People I have never met have certainly seen pictures of my sons taken at their sporting events and it doesn't even remotely concern me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That seems like a bit of a loaded statement :huh: . FYI, most women CHOOSE to veil for their own religious convictions, choose being the operative word. I chose and it was actually quite liberating. And earned me respect. But I think this falls under a different thread.

 

 

I'm not saying that women in the middle east feel that way, but that most of us in the west feel that that is the case. In other words, that's our perception of it.

 

I'm also saying that my "take" from Medieval times was that it was a class thing, not a "all women have to cover up" thing. I could be wrong.

 

Also, bluntly: wearing a face veil in the US, like it or not, is a great way to attract extra attention and scrutiny to yourself due to profiling. You will also attract harassment from some in many areas. Let's be serious for a second here. With the exception of short periods of decorative veiling on hats, wedding veils and perhaps widow's funeral veils, veils have never been commonly used in the US. So the Kung Fu's point is spot on- resurgence from what? Antiquity?

 

 

Exactly - a resurgence from Medieval (and later) times in western culture when women chose to veil themselves for the sake of privacy. Look, I'm being facetious here, but it's for a point. We've gone from having at least a semblance of control over our images to pretty much no control at all in the course of a decade, and the next couple of years (probably less) is going to take that loss of control to a whole new level.

 

Everything we're talking about doing about it is a reaction - nothing has been decided by our culture about the right or wrong of it. Business is just handing us the technology and saying, "here's how it's going to be."I'm just wondering out loud what our reaction will be as a society and how far some people might go to regain their privacy.

 

It would be interesting to find out if we'll see a rise in social anxiety disorders with the loss of personal privacy. Will the rich among us somehow gain tools that allow them to be more private than the poor? Or will we all just stop caring?

 

Obviously, the younger generation growing up with this is going to be more comfortable (on the whole) than the older generations who are getting it foisted on them at a later time in life. But will millenials and later generations have a backlash against it in 20 years when they're tired of the over-exposure? How many people will commit suicide over gross invasions of privacy? How many people will live outlandishly just because you can't get any privacy?

 

Like everything else, we'll adapt and move on, of course. FB and face recognition probably won't wipe out the species, LOL, but it's definitely changing the game, right?

 

Most people in this thread are focusing on facebook and tagging, but to me the place where the technology gets ugly is the real-time face recognition thing that something like Google glasses could give you: imagine that you are sitting in a restaurant and a stranger walks in. He glances at you and sees:

 

Your full name, age, address and phone number

Where you work

Your marital status, number of kids, religious affiliation

Your last few facebook posts, images of you that are tagged

 

Sure, that basic info is available now to anyone who can figure out your name. But what about when it gets a little more sophisticated and shows that same stranger the last 20 books you clicked on at Amazon, the articles you clicked on when you scanned CNN, and so on and so forth.

 

What if - like I did yesterday to research a novel - that same stranger, or a police officer, or whoever - is able to know that I searched for the cost of plane tickets to Afghanistan, Pashtun names and so on? They don't know why I did it. Suddenly I look suspicious, right?

 

In other words, what if everything you do and look at becomes available as information to whoever "glances" at you? And you know that every bit of information is thereby going to be used in judgement of you - before the two of you even speak? Even if the two of you never speak.

 

The technology is already here; it's just putting it together. My point is that with that kind of loss of privacy, I have a feeling that you get a loss of creativity and freedom, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way back in the day, photos were kept in photo albums. You might get your film developed and send a copy of a pic to someone who was in your photo, but the pics weren't out there for the general public to do whatever with and in general, your minor child was protected from intrusion. Not so anymore. Digital photoshop software allows anyone to capture those social media photos and alter them as they like. This is why the pic you don't know is out there of your cute baby in his diaper that aunty decided to put on her page and let 100's of people have access to can now be photo-shopped into child p*rn. Technology, while having tremendous good, also comes with the flip side of much evil when twisted for sick purposes. Less scary, but equally upsetting, is that 100's of thousands of photos have been stolen from facebook pages and used by companies in their ads. No product is off limits. Do you want your teenage daughter's pic used for advertising an adult bookstore? How about tampons? How about your son's image in a condom ad? Flicker is another site that images are mined from. The companies save money by not paying for models and professional photographers and have a fairly good statistical chance you won't find out. As for judges, a few will side with private citizens, but most will say that especially if the pic was taken outside the privacy of your own home, you had no expectation of privacy and therefore, the photo can be used. Usually, only those rare folks who manage to find out that an image has been used in a child p*rn site or video, can get anything done about it because that is of course, criminal and prosecutable. Therefore, I am very worried about privacy issues, image use, and social media. Yet, I can't escape the fact that I like to photograph my kids and so do others. I don't put pics of them on social media. But, I can hardly stop others from doing so. This is why I stand by my assertion that we need some laws stating that your image is your own and you retain legal rights to the use of it, same for parents or guardians of minors. No consent form signed, using it is illegal and prosecutable. Unfriendly and burdensome? Yes. But, that's where I think we've sunk in this culture since many people do not exercise an ounce of common sense about what they do and do not post on these sites nor do they show respect for the people they photograph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised the gym permitted photography. The pools where I've worked do not permitted photography, unless photo is only of the person's child. You could include the child's instructor if you get the instrucotr's permission. I haven't seen cameras at kids classes for years. I think mos places I've been have these policies.

That's interesting, I've never seen a policy like that, not at ballet, swimming, gymnastics, tkd, football, baseball, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's mainly our generation who cares (or might care - some don't). At school I don't see a single kid who has issues with sharing photos of all sorts. Many (not all) even wonder what all the fuss about se_ting is for.

 

The times are definitely changing.

 

Personally, I'm in the "don't really care about it" group. We also don't have FB (my kids do).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people in this thread are focusing on facebook and tagging, but to me the place where the technology gets ugly is the real-time face recognition thing that something like Google glasses could give you: imagine that you are sitting in a restaurant and a stranger walks in. He glances at you and sees:

 

Your full name, age, address and phone number

Where you work

Your marital status, number of kids, religious affiliation

Your last few facebook posts, images of you that are tagged

 

Sure, that basic info is available now to anyone who can figure out your name. But what about when it gets a little more sophisticated and shows that same stranger the last 20 books you clicked on at Amazon, the articles you clicked on when you scanned CNN, and so on and so forth.

 

What if - like I did yesterday to research a novel - that same stranger, or a police officer, or whoever - is able to know that I searched for the cost of plane tickets to Afghanistan, Pashtun names and so on? They don't know why I did it. Suddenly I look suspicious, right?

 

In other words, what if everything you do and look at becomes available as information to whoever "glances" at you? And you know that every bit of information is thereby going to be used in judgement of you - before the two of you even speak? Even if the two of you never speak.

 

The technology is already here; it's just putting it together. My point is that with that kind of loss of privacy, I have a feeling that you get a loss of creativity and freedom, too.

 

 

That actually sounds like an interesting premise for a novel. I do agree with you that it's heading in that direction, but will there be much of a backlash from the next generation for whom that kind of thing will be "normal"? Look at texting, for example. The younger generation who grew up with it sees it as completely normal, whereas the older generation for whom it is new often despises it. New rules of etiquette have developed as a result, ie no texting at the dinner table, or while company is over, or whatever. I imagine the same thing will happen with privacy. Something like, "Remove your Google goggles when entering a public place." Of course, not everybody will follow those rules, but they don't now, do they? Or maybe someone will invent "goggle scramblers". But probably no huge backlash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those last few, I told parents that they could not video tape themselves and hired a professional whom parents could purchase copies from which kind of protected everyone since the contract stated that the video was his intellectual/professional property and could not be published by anyone else. We made a sound recording only for everyone to have for free. Parents could take pics of their own child, or the child and me at the piano for their personal use, and I did not take a photo of the entire group except for my own wall. I did not allow the parents to do so either until they got permission from each other and ALL agreed on how it could be used afterward. This way, I didn't end up with parental complaints.

Faith

 

 

I have a complaint bc that doesn't address the problem at all IMO.

 

Problem: taking pictures and or info of someone else's kid that the parent then has no control over.

 

The only thing you changed is that now a "professional" has control to do with it as they want and the parents have to pay them to even have a copy of their own child. The professional then owns the pics/vids and can do whatever they want with it. I suppose that better than 20 parents doing whatever they want with it, but not really. Because any of the parents who pay to access the photos can still do whatever they want with their own copy as long as they note the photo was taken by whatever professional.

 

Personally, I never sign permission for my child to be used in any advertising. And yet I still have never had my permission asked before someone brings in a professional to take pics and they never make an effort to remove my child from the photo. IME, they presume everyone checks yes, okay and don't even look for the few that say no. Highly annoying.

 

I've had people say, "don't you want ___ in the paper? How fun!"

 

No, I don't actually. I could go my entire life without a single one of my kids ever being famous for anything and be quite happy with their quiet happily productive and contributing to society lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a complaint bc that doesn't address the problem at all IMO.

 

Problem: taking pictures and or info of someone else's kid that the parent then has no control over.

 

The only thing you changed is that now a "professional" has control to do with it as they want and the parents have to pay them to even have a copy of their own child. The professional then owns the pics/vids and can do whatever they want with it. I suppose that better than 20 parents doing whatever they want with it, but not really. Because any of the parents who pay to access the photos can still do whatever they want with their own copy as long as they note the photo was taken by whatever professional.

 

Personally, I never sign permission for my child to be used in any advertising. And yet I still have never had my permission asked before someone brings in a professional to take pics and they never make an effort to remove my child from the photo. IME, they presume everyone checks yes, okay and don't even look for the few that say no. Highly annoying.

 

I've had people say, "don't you want ___ in the paper? How fun!"

 

No, I don't actually. I could go my entire life without a single one of my kids ever being famous for anything and be quite happy with their quiet happily productive and contributing to society lives.

 

Please do not make assumptions about what was in my contract. The contract specifically state that the professional could not use the video or photos without the express consent, form being signed, of each and every child in that shot. I explained my concerns and position to the photographer/videographer and that is what we agreed upon both verbally and in writing. Had he violated that, he would have had legal trouble on his hands because he agreed to it. Yes, the parents had to pay for the video. But, as you suggest, that's better than 20 people videotaping and 20 people doing what they darn well please with the material. The photos were watermarked for the studio to help us track them down if someone attempted to use them. As I said though, youtube was just beginning and facebook/my space, etc. was all very new. I am under no illusion that this would be at all protective today. At least I tried to protect privacy which is a whole heck of a lot more than any other studio owner I knew ever did. To assume the photographer did whatever he wanted is inaccurate because he was under contract to NOT publish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not assuming the photographer did anything or anything about your contract. I'm simply stating what is very common practice for professional photographers. If they do a great job, they usually want to be ale to use it. Some ask. Some don't. Some have a generic, "by permitting this photo session and or purchasing from this studio, you hereby give permission for the studio to use these materials and the likeness of them... Blahblahblah. "

 

It's very common.

 

I've yet to hear of a single studio that watermarks getting pissed if someone who bought the photo uses that photo on FB or their blog or sends it to grandma. And which point, it can end up anywhere by anyone. Watermarks aren't particuliarly difficult to remove. It's s fine line for a studio to walk. Otoh, they like free publicity as much as anyone else and they don't want to tick off everyone that buys photos from them. Otoh, yeah, the photos are out there with or without permission, even if credit is given.

 

I can tell you if I pay several hundreds for let's say.. A family photo session and I pay to have those photos, which usually includes a digital copy, I'm going to be pretty ticked if the studio tells me I can post pictures I paid for of my own family on my FB or blog or email them to grandma. And when word gets out that they are restricting clients like that, they will very likely lose clients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Truth Machine, a way-before-Facebook1997 novel by James Helperin, is a good read if you are interested in privacy topics. The machine in the title is a lie detector that is 100% accurate, and part of the back story is that most people live a 'documented life' 24/7. Video is ubiquitous, conversations are recorded, and so on. If I recall correctly, it is viewed as strange if you do not want to do so - kind of 'what are you doing wrong,' like people say about data mining or police searches.

 

It's only available in print from 3rd party sellers, but there is a Kindle edition:

http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/0345412885

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...