This thread is a continuation of a discussion that started in the "under a mother's watchful eye" thread. I did not want to hijack that thread so I started this one
The topic that came up was: From a privacy standpoint, is being able to see, with your eyes, a person in public the same as being able to photograph a person in public.
I made the comment
"Perhaps some people feel there is a difference between being able to see something with the human eye and making a permanent record with it using a camera?
Photographers seem to presume that if someone is OK with being seen, they are automatically OK with being photographed. I don't think they should be considered the same."
Interesting point.
My view is that they should be considered the same. If you are in public, you are a fair game (in most cases at least).
But I see your point and would like that you or someone else who shares your view elaborate it a bit further. Why? What's the difference? Genuine questions, not trolling.
To me the difference is that if someone sees me in public, there is a non-permanent image taken with the eyes/brain. All that remains is the person's memory. Later, all a person can do is describe what they saw to someone else. "Hey, today, I saw this old, bald, fat guy walking down the street. Crikey he could stand to lose a few tons!" After a while, unless the person possesses a fantastic memory, the memory of an individual seen in public fades and is eventually forgotten. My privacy, when seen in public is maintained partly by the passage of time and fading memory.
Contrast this with taking a photograph where a more permanent image is taken. That image, unlike a description, can be given or shared with a practically unlimited number of people. With the advent of digital images, these images can be quickly spread far outside the control of the original photographer. Even if the photographer has no ill intent, the photographer has no control over the image after it goes out of his or her... uh.. well... control.
With photography, there is no temporal aspect of privacy, until all copies of the photograph are destroyed. This is what makes photography valuable and at the same time more intrusive than memory.
Also the level of privacy (or more precisely, privacy invasion) between seeing someone and taking a photograph of that person is different. Unless you are staring at someone for a long time, just seeing someone in public will give you a general impression of the person. You will notice and remember the major aspects of the person. With a photograph, it records a whole lot more detail which means you have collected more information about the person than you would just by seeing them. In this instance, looking at a person and photographing them are not the same in the context of the extent of privacy affected. Privacy should not be considered only a dichotomous state, but more a spectrum.
My point was actually about assumptions. When discussing issues, I feel it is important to identify and evaluate the assumptions involved in the issue.
Many photographers assume that seeing someone in public and photographing people are the same thing. If one is permitted than the other is permitted. That assumption may be right or it may be wrong, but it is an assumption and should not be treated as an already established fact.
The problem with assumptions is that they can be easily misunderstood as facts, especially if the assumptions are shared with a large population and repeated a lot. But regardless of how many people agree with an assumption, it is an assumption and not necessarily a fact until it is demonstrated and evaluated as a fact.
The key difference is that if someone disagrees with a fact, they are wrong, but if they disagree with an assumption, they just have a different assumption that may or may not be valid.
Privacy, especially considering it as a spectrum is a very complicated matter and even the courts are struggling to define and establish legal limits. Ethical and moral definitions and limits are another matter entirely.
So while a logical case can be made that if I go out in public where there are other people, I must accept their ability to look at me and remember what they saw, that does not necessarily mean that I automatically must accept their ability to take a more permanent record containing more information than can be remembered. That may be true or that may be false.
One assumption is that they are different, another assumption is that they are the same. But both are assumptions.
Maybe from a legal and a moral standpoint they are the same, maybe they are not. But I don't think it is logical to just automatically assume that anything that can be allowed to be seen by the eye can/should be allowed to be photographed.
On this and pretty much any other photography forum, this assumption seems to be common and accepted, but has not been demonstrated to be true.
Naturally, as photographers, we would like seeing/photographing to be the same.. after all, this is our hobby/profession/interest.
But that also makes us at risk of being biased.
People who are not photographers, may have a different opinion.
