That is one of the things that really, really, really bugs me.
I want to tell my friends "don't ever put up pictures that include me on facebook" but I can't because it's too big of a request at this point, and I'd end up being too much of a dick if I started making that demand. I really struggle with this. Facebook, that evil behemoth, has won big. I really just wish that it would get hacked or something so people stop trusting social networking sites. Come on blackhats, do your thing.
I can understand why you would want to do this. But, I don't think it is in society's best interest to think of information about a person as being generally owned by them. I can see restricting certain harmful things you might want to do with that information, but I think you're correct in your conclusion that such a request would be a significant overreach.
Plenty of societies function pretty well on the principle that information about a person is generally owned by them.
In fact, the US is one of the few Western countries that doesn't recognize that principle, most others are only strengthening their legislation in that regard, against heavy lobbying from the US government and Silicon Valley corporations.
> "I don't think it is in society's best interest to think of information about a person as being generally owned by them."
What is the worse case scenario of people start widely adopting that notion? It becomes harder to run certain types of businesses that count on that not being true? We have to adopt new social etiquette for public photography if we don't want to appear rude?
Pictures are a subcategory of information generally. It would be really awkward not to be able to talk about your friends (online or otherwise) without their explicit permission. And what about strangers? Criticism and news of all kinds would violate such a more, and I don't see how that could be a good thing. You can imagine a world in which people demand that the Wikipedia page about them being taken down, and simple politeness militates that it is.
I suppose you could make a special case for photos, but I don't really see anything that specifically commends it relative to other information about you.
> It would be really awkward not to be able to talk about your friends (online or otherwise) without their explicit permission.
Would this concept of ownership of information be particularly stronger than our existing concept of ownership of creative works? If I tell a friend a story then I and he consider myself to be the "owner" of that story, but I certainly don't tend to mind if he retells the story as his own in a noncommercial context, so long as I am not present. However if he gets my story published, then I am going to be rather upset.
If a friend wants to talk about me with other people at a bar, that is fine I guess. If he writes a book about me, I would absolutely consider that a considerable breach of trust. I have no problem with being on the receiving end of this notion of privacy.
While the bar is a noncommercial setting to tell stories, it's hardly a private one. The analogy seems to suggest that the distinguishing feature that triggers the more is on one side commercialism and on the other side publicness, but then it doesn't quite keep it consistent. So I guess I don't quite get it: why, under this reasoning, is it OK for him to tell the story about you at the bar?
Not at the moment of the conversation, but there's nothing stopping one of the people there from blogging about it once they get home (think Silicon Valley "overheard" product leaks).
The fact that a piece of information passes through a volatile medium before ending up in a more permanent form doesn't change the value or ownership of the information.
On a tangent, Google Glass passive audio and video recordings will be much more damaging to one's privacy than photos shared intentionally by friends.
Unless you have a model relase, its not clear you should be publishing the likenesses of others. Facebook is using these images for commercial purposes, period. While this is a devil's argument case, its not without merit.
That's an interesting angle. But presumably if someone comes along and creates a non-commercial FB competitor and people post photos of you there instead, that doesn't really address the real issue here, right?
Non-profits are subject to the same restrictions, it would seem. The red cross cannot sell fake designer goods to raise money "for charity" (and the $1MM CEO salary), etc. Nor can they use the likeness of Rihanna or Beyonce to further their ad campaigns without writen permission.
File this under "fun facts", and I can certainly understand not knowing, but the singular of "mores" is "mos". I seem to remember that it might have different meanings (in Latin) in the singular and plural, but that could easily be a false memory or a transference from vis/vires.
That is an insufficiently imaginative worst case scenario, especially if you're going to put "Orwellian police state" on the other side of the scale -- with apologies if you were not planning on going there. How about: it becomes a crime to do an unauthorized biography? Someone is jailed for writing an angry blog post about their ex? Etc.
Honestly, I think I could cope. That sounds easily preferable to the path we are on today.
However it is certain that putting the brakes on the rampant disregard for privacy does not have to result in such a pleasant extreme. "Banning unauthorized biographies" is many steps removed from "the public loses their trust in centralized social networks"
Sorry, I didn't go as far as I could. Let me try again: it becomes a crime to think about or discuss someone who has asked not to be thought about or discussed. There. That's pretty much the worst I can think of.
I hope you'll be OK, because it is almost inconceivable to me that the future will be more private with the progress of technology and miniaturization, and given how much people seem to care about it now.
Don't worry about me jamesaguilar, I'm good at coping.
I really can't say that I am bothered at the notion of somebody owning the information about themselves. If I write a story, I own that currently and other people cannot use that story without my permission. I'm just not seeing ownership of my life story as a particularly more bothersome concept.
Hell, throw a bone to historians and keep a concept of public domain after a period of time. I don't get to own other sorts of data forever, so that is fine.
Is information in your head your information or mine?
Stories have many characters. If I cheat you, lie to you, call you names, win over your girlfriend, and steal your dog, can I prevent you from using my story without permission?
This notion of information ownership is relevant in practical things. Look at the use of SLAPPs [1], for example. Or credit reporting, or Yelp, or even reporting crimes. All could be impacted by the radical version of personal ownership of personal data.
The right of ownership of fiction is mainly a commercial right: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." So it doesn't really apply in non-commercial contexts. It's very limited in practice.
The book The Quantum Thief [2] has an interesting society where information ownership extends that far. If you don't have contract agreement to see or remember somebody, you won't.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it would be ideal, I am saying that I could cope. Certainly fear of this sort of future would not put me off campaigning for slowing the erosion of privacy, as it seems to for jamesaguilar.
Nevertheless, I think you are seeing problems where there would be none. Reporting a crime involves violating the perpetrates privacy? Well sometimes stopping a crime or defending yourself violates the perpetrators right to not be struck or even killed. We seem to operate pretty well with self-defense exceptions to general bans on violence. It is easy to imagine analogues.
Our lawmakers agree with you, which is why the US has laws specifically excluding public persons (politicians, celebrities, etc.) from being able to claim many breach of privacy violations a normal private citizen is afforded.
There's a very big distinction between my likeliness in society, and private photos taken in my living room though. If I am out on the street and I am published doing some kind of public, visible activity I am fine with that. What's not cool is when I am at home, in my own bedroom, doing a puzzle with my child and a visitor comes in takes a picture and posts that on Facebook.
I go a step further, I generally ask not to have photos taken. Other than pictures of me as a child, my family and friends actually have no recent photos of me. For the most part, people are quite compliant of that request.
I want you to know that I feel the same way, and I've felt that way since long before the Internet. I actually think that it runs in my family a bit - we're very private people.
Honestly, I prefer to live life rather than live the process of creating a record of a life. I also prefer things to be ephemeral, rather then so every-decision-you-make-is-permanent. I think people are less adventurous when they feel like they're performing for posterity.
Of course, I also have a healthy dose of paranoia. The news lately has made me very happy about the choices that I was making before 9/11.
People are generally good about it. If people want to take a picture of you or write about you in their blog or something, it means they like you. They'll probably be amused that you're so private. Of course, you probably will have to give your best friends a picture once every 10-15 years, but they already know you're a weirdo, and won't be posting it anywhere.
>I actually think that it runs in my family a bit - we're very private people.
I completely agree. I think a lot of decisions I make are based off cultural reasons. My family has always had respect for privacy, although only "offline". ie. they'll knock before coming in. However, as they don't know much about technology, they all use Facebook and tag every photo. I feel like they seem to believe the privacy they enjoy offline extends online somehow.
To be fully honest, I'm not entirely sure. I don't like the idea that photos of me end up on the web and stay archived forever. Something about that is chilling. In a post-PRISM world, I suppose my way of pushing back is simply asking for the right to be forgotten. Rather than asking people to never post images online, I just ask them not to take them.
My honest opinion is if you were to hang out with friends, a photo or two is fine. Enjoy your live. But if that's what you choose to do, I can't stop you. But thought I'd give out my little useless 0.2 Bitcoin.
Others already commented similar reactions: You're attitude is rather strict. I certainly sympathize with your stance here, understand in parts why you'd do that, but .. aren't you looking at the wrong part of the problem?
Family and friends taking pictures (and potentially spreading them) is one thing, but I guess you do fly or buy your groceries somewhere while a camera is watching. In other words: Why this rather strict policy with family and friends, if you cannot help being 'remembered' anywhere you go in public?
Aren't family and friends asking the same question? What do you answer?
Friends & family members don't ask any questions which is why I posted "people are quite compliant of that request". Yes, there's plenty of CCTV footage of me, I suppose the difference is there's no connection. Footage isn't tagged and is really only kept for security purposes; if something happens in the area. Of course, if facial recognition were implemented in CCTV, that would be a different matter all together.
It just feels like we're heading towards 1984. The way we use technology is changing. Prior to the internet, I'd have little reason to complain about photography. It's only with the advent of tagging on Facebook that I have become a lot more strict.
On the other hand, unless you have some rational reason to not have your existence recorded, this sounds like passive aggressive self-destruction and hatred.
I swear nobody knows what passive aggressive actually means. They asked not to have their picture taken (presumably politely) and the request was complied with. End of story.
In psychology, passive-aggressive behavior is characterised by a habitual pattern of passive resistance to expected work requirements, opposition, stubbornness, and negativistic attitudes in response to requirements for normal performance levels expected of others. Most frequently it occurs in the workplace where resistance is exhibited by such indirect behaviors as procrastination, forgetfulness, and purposeful inefficiency, especially in reaction to demands by authority figures, but it can also occur in interpersonal contexts.
The phrase passive-aggressive is used to describe behavior or a personality trait that involves acting indirectly aggressive rather than directly aggressive. Passive-aggressive people regularly exhibit resistance to requests or demands from family and other individuals often by procrastinating, expressing sullenness, or acting stubborn.
Passive-aggressive behavior may manifest itself in a number of different ways. For example, a person might repeatedly make excuses to avoid certain people as a way of expressing their dislike or anger towards those individuals.
They were direct in their request (not passive) and not aggressive either (no negative behaviors).
Passive-aggressive behavior is a pattern of indirectly expressing negative feelings instead of openly addressing them. There's a disconnect between what a passive-aggressive person says and what he or she does.
For example, a passive-aggressive person might appear to agree — perhaps even enthusiastically — with another person's request. Rather than complying with the request, however, he or she might express anger or resentment by failing to follow through or missing deadlines.
Specific signs of passive-aggressive behavior include:
Resentment and opposition to the demands of others
Procrastination and intentional mistakes in response to others' demands
Cynical, sullen or hostile attitude
Frequent complaints about feeling underappreciated or cheated
I'm more-than-a-quarter-less-than-half Lakota (one of the early peoples to settle North America). I tell people I feel that pictures steal a bit of my soul. It has nothing to do with my heritage, but people generally accept it.
For a moment I thought I was on 4chan or something. The fact you create a throwaway account suggests your just a troll out to provoke a reaction. I don't do either of those 3.
You have absolutely every right to request your friends don't post pictures of you on facebook (or anywhere else). If they don't respect that... then I know who the "dick" is.
You really can. In my experience, people respect your choices. They may pity you (if they're the type that generally pity anyone different than themselves), they may find it funny, they may actually lean toward feeling the same way, but just not feel as strongly. People still respect your wishes.
Sometimes I feel that people have reached a point where a vast majority couldn't understand why a person would want to write a novel under a pen name, or donate anonymously, or work quietly. They can understand wanting to make up a name, but just to have a cooler name, not as a misdirection.
Sure, you can make a request, and most people will respect it. But you can't make it as a demand. If I want to tweet "I was out partying with pessimizer last night" there is no reasonable way (short of libel laws) to stop me.
This is the part I don't understand. ok, we shut down Facebook tomorrow. All those people talking about you aren't going to move to LiveJournal or whatever? Are we going to shut down flickr and wordpress, too?
Good heavens, imagine the clusterfuck it'd be if everybody ran their own server, as advocated by at least one HN post per week. You'd never be able to shut them all down!
The concept is called a "photo release" and it's standard in print media before they will publish a photo of someone who is clearly identifiable (public figures/celebrities excepted).
I don't know if they are legally required though. If they are, what you want is a court case that finds that Facebook needs a photo release from each person before allowing that person to be "tagged" in a posted photo.
I don't use Facebook, but would be unsurprised to find that somewhere in their terms of use you grant a blanket photo release to them.
Eliminating facebook would definitely prevent any pictures with you in them from being shared. There's just nowhere else to post pictures, and nothing would ever replace them.
All my close friends, who regularly take pictures where I'm in, know not to put me on Facebook and most certainly never, ever to tag me. I tell them this from time to time. I guess they find that funny but they also respect it.
Whenever someone new photographs me or my children and it's in a private setting, I tell them to not post it on Facebook and also explain why. They generally understand. I don't care they think I'm weird and I guess I can't prevent it when they do put it on Facebook. But I communicate my wishes all the time and generally people respond very well.
Seriously on some level of informtion security, if people need to talk about real life it can be pretty powerful information if we do not forget so seriously.
Computer give us information aged weller, posts people trust with their very real life, because of that fact information-life-and-death is no longer our primary fight for humanity, if infopsychotech functions that we truly can not forget alll our friends.
Our real diasporas may have real life informed people who can respond to all our lives equally intact, if with infotech promises we can relate, can be a humanizing force if humanity can no longer delete our life facts.
