Unless you had them sign a model release, then yea, you're not allowed to do that.
Fucking rubbish. I see street scenes, football crowds, even wanted posters in newspaper.
The number of people in those who've signed release forms? None.
Well, if the faces in the images are obscure enough, you're probably safe, but lord help you if you get a decent picture of someone and sell it, they find out, and sue you. Chances are the judge will want to award them something for the unauthorized use of their likeness; doubly so if you happen to live in CA (because of the celebrities, don'tcha know).
Even if they don't win, they'll put you through hell just to make the point. Not saying you should stop taking public photos, but me? I say, better safe than sorry. But of course, I don't win my bread by selling pictures.
We need to establish the understanding that there is a significant distinction between OBSERVING and RECORDING.
I think the best way to achieve that would be to A) increase awareness of the situation, and B) encourage people to use those same tactics against the people who are invading our privacy for personal profit - When you see some sleazeball cruising your parking lot with a camera, point one right back at him, and upload the images to a public shaming database.
And how will public shame work on repo men?
I'm picturing a nice banner across the top of the public-facing website: THESE PEOPLE ARE PROFESSIONAL THIEVES! DO NOT TRUST! DO NOT ALLOW ONTO YOUR PROPERTY! With a fair amount of FUD following, something that will get property owners good and freaked.
On top of that, if you can get enough plate pictures to draw up a nice little map of all their travels, their... potentially questionable activities may take care of the problem; I imagine a repo-man's wife, upon perusing the site, asking her husband why he was at her sister's house for 2 hours when he was told her it would be a 'late night at the office.'
Explain in detail how it is trespassing when it is parking lot that is open to the public and the people taking the pictures are part of the public.
Well, for starters, I don't know about where you live, but in my state the parking lot of a residence is decidedly not "open to the public," it is open to the residents, and the property owners (if they are different entities). Just because a place can be physically accessed from a public street does not make it de facto "open to the public."
On top of that, regardless of how the property is accessed, if there is posted signage stating that trespassing and/or photo taking on the property is prohibited, then it's prohibited, period, end of story. Think about private clubs - by all appearances they are "open to the public" like, say, a bar, but likely has special rules that one must abide by regardless; a local cigar bar I occasionally attend has such a "no pictures" policy.
Despite what helicopter parents and control freaks want to believe, private property is private property, and is governed by the laws of private property, not public. It's all in how the property owner wishes to enforce their own rules.
Following someone around on public property is now stalking?
For particular values of "following someone around," yes, depending on the state you're in. But that's not a new thing, we've had anti-stalking laws in one form or another since the 1980's at least.
This is collecting data nonintrusively, so at what point would it become illegal?
If the photo-takers are cruising private lots without permission, then it is not 'non-intrusive data collection,' it's trespassing. I'm pretty sure taking unauthorized photos while trespassing is also a crime, although that one is probably location-specific.
Static plates could be replaced by electronic displays that automatically go blank when the car is parked.
Or, you could just invest in a car cover and put it on your car and over the license plate when you park.
Yes, that's definitely a better idea than some fancy (read: expensive) electronic (read: tracking) device.
If you like to hack, you could also consider designing a cover that obscures the plate any time the vehicle is shifted into Park. At least, that's what I would do; way less of a PITA than fiddling with a car cover.
I have no problem with a private individual or company doing this.
I have a big problem with the government, who has the ability to deprive me of my posessions, my freedom, and my life, being able to do this.
What if the private company is willing to sell your identifying info to a group who intends to deprive you of your possessions, freedom, life, et. al.?
They're supposed to - but speaking as a person who almost had to brain a repo man once, because he was trying to steal a vehicle he had no right taking, I can assure you that this is not always the case.
Although, to be fair, his boss was more than willing to double check the VIN once I started throwing around terms like "attorney" and "castle law."
The taking a picture part isn't the problem. The problem happens when you collate all those pictures and index them such that it becomes more stalker like in nature.
Also, I presume that none of these for-profit shutterbugs bothered to get the property owners to sign a release, thereby making the sale of said data de facto illegal.
Takking a photo in public should be freakishly illegal in a "modern, developed country"?
Reductio ad absurdum - we're not talking about the practice of innocuous picture-taking, we're talking about onerous collection of personal data into a for-profit database.
And, FWIW, go try and take some public photos of, say, a courthouse, or better yet, a power station. You'll discover the "public photography" double standard rather quickly, I assure you.
Also, here's a short article regarding the legal implications of taking pictures in select public places.
If these repo guys are just trolling parking lots looking for plate numbers, I'm betting they aren't going to bother with taking the time to hop out and read a VIN.
Last I checked, The Gubment isn't using drones to send hellfire missiles into American Citizen's homes without Judicial Review.
Check again; Anwar al Awlaki was an American citizen who was killed in a drone strike in Yemen.
Oh, I get it - you mean they haven't drone-struck (striked?) any American citizen on American soil! Well, technically, that is correct, although I recall it being discussed during the manhunt of Christopher Dorner, and in fact the President and Attorney General have already discussed the legality of such an action - they agree that it would be legal to murder US citizens without trial, on American soil.
Which means it's only a matter of time before it happens. Government types aren't likely to give up a power once they've established it.
We need to establish the understanding that there is a significant distinction between OBSERVING and RECORDING.
I think the best way to achieve that would be to A) increase awareness of the situation, and B) encourage people to use those same tactics against the people who are invading our privacy for personal profit - When you see some sleazeball cruising your parking lot with a camera, point one right back at him, and upload the images to a public shaming database.
Don't try and defend the indefensible - this entire thread is a discussion about Microsoft's desktop OS offerings, so if someone mentions "Apple OS" without specifically stating that they mean a mobile OS, then a reasonable person is going to assume that they are referring to Apple's desktop operating system.
He said "But when Apple not only puts their own web browser in their OS, *BUT FORBIDS INSTALLING ANY OTHER THIRD-PARTY BROWSER*".
Did you read the sentence before that one? You know, so you understand the context?
Here it is:
There are loads of people on/. who are still blasting MS for putting a fucking their own web browser in their OS back in the 90's.
Considering that NOBODY had a mobile OS in the 90's, it stands to reason that even OP knew that we're discussing desktop offerings.
On top of that, when called out on this seemingly obvious aspect of human communication, OP decided to relocate the goalposts and toss in a non sequitur in a weak attempt to try and deflect from the fact that they are not doing a very good job of expressing themselves.
If you still don't get why OP failed to communicate effectively, take an English class.
Bullshit, people re-electing retards who become engrossed with their power in congress leads us to these things.
Not necessarily; for example, in the last election my district voted in a "Tea Party" candidate, whose entire campaign was based around the concept that he was "fed up" with the status quo in DC. So, he got himself into office, handed his auctioneering company over to a friend... and proceeded to become part of the exact same status quo he campaigned against. Like, the very first fucking day.
I think the problem isn't that we're "re-electing retards;" I think the problem is that anyone who isn't already a wealthy oligarch doesn't stand a chance of so much as getting on the ballot, let alone gaining enough support to actually win an election.
Until we de-rig the election process to allow candidates from demographics other than "filthy fucking rich" to actually stand a chance, nothing will change. At least, not for the better.
Do you honestly think they're not going to eventually bring it to their Mac desktops too (if they even keep making desktops)?
The suggestion was that Apple is already doing this on their desktop OS - which is not true.
Moving the goalposts from present to future doesn't change the fact that you were incorrect in your original supposition; be a man (or woman) and either admit your mistake, or at least stop prattling on about it - doubling down on being wrong isn't going to win you any friends (although it may influence some people).
It's a fair point. I don't use my telephone when I'm driving, hands-free or otherwise, because it would be too distracting.
I don't interact with mine while I drive, but since I normally start my trip by plugging the phone into the aux port and firing up Pandora, I can't really say that I "don't use it" while driving.
I do, however, find somewhere safe to pull off the road if I ever need to make or receive any sort of communication.
They're standard on Honda Civics as of this year, I think. Not sure if that includes steering wheel-based controls (but man, I'd hope so!)
Indeed. They are being introduced with iOS Carplay, so yes, that would presumably include touchscreens. But that's the upcoming model. The existing model has a screen which is surrounded by manual buttons, so I guess that's not touchscreen.
Did not know they were going with Carplay (or carPlay or CarPlay or however they trademarked it), might be interesting to see how/if that effects sales.
I said 'touchscreens suck;' you said 'That's why there's typically car stereo controls on the steering wheel.'
Right. It makes it safer, in that you don't have to take your eyes off the road or hand off the steering wheel, regardless if the centre dash controls are manual or touchscreen.
Yea, well, I was being a pedant yesterday, not sure why. Off my rhythm or some such.
Holding the cruise control level to change speed is more distracting than holding a button to activate voice commands - I have to visibly look at the speed that I'm setting.
Hmm, interesting; I wonder, which takes more brainpower away from the task of driving: holding down the CC button while looking at the speed for a few seconds, or holding down the "phone" button while you think about the upcoming call...
1 - the indicator stick anecdote doesn't really apply, but the one about the cruise control is a good analogue.
2 - increasing/decreasing the speed via the cruise controls is directly related to the act of piloting your automobile, and seems less likely to be as distracting as a button you have to hold to do non-driving-related activities, such as phone calls.
All in all, seems like the question would make a pretty good basis for study.
So, you want a system that restricts access... but you don't want to restrict access. You want logging and tracking of users... but you don't want to have to read logs or tracking tables.
My suggestion? Find a new line of work, budro; you ain't cut out for this.
Slashdot Mirror
Fucking rubbish. I see street scenes, football crowds, even wanted posters in newspaper.
The number of people in those who've signed release forms? None.
Well, if the faces in the images are obscure enough, you're probably safe, but lord help you if you get a decent picture of someone and sell it, they find out, and sue you. Chances are the judge will want to award them something for the unauthorized use of their likeness; doubly so if you happen to live in CA (because of the celebrities, don'tcha know).
Even if they don't win, they'll put you through hell just to make the point. Not saying you should stop taking public photos, but me? I say, better safe than sorry. But of course, I don't win my bread by selling pictures.
Goddammit, this shit needs to stop NOW.
We need to establish the understanding that there is a significant distinction between OBSERVING and RECORDING.
I think the best way to achieve that would be to A) increase awareness of the situation, and B) encourage people to use those same tactics against the people who are invading our privacy for personal profit - When you see some sleazeball cruising your parking lot with a camera, point one right back at him, and upload the images to a public shaming database.
And how will public shame work on repo men?
I'm picturing a nice banner across the top of the public-facing website: THESE PEOPLE ARE PROFESSIONAL THIEVES! DO NOT TRUST! DO NOT ALLOW ONTO YOUR PROPERTY! With a fair amount of FUD following, something that will get property owners good and freaked.
On top of that, if you can get enough plate pictures to draw up a nice little map of all their travels, their... potentially questionable activities may take care of the problem; I imagine a repo-man's wife, upon perusing the site, asking her husband why he was at her sister's house for 2 hours when he was told her it would be a 'late night at the office.'
Just spitballin'
Explain in detail how it is trespassing when it is parking lot that is open to the public and the people taking the pictures are part of the public.
Well, for starters, I don't know about where you live, but in my state the parking lot of a residence is decidedly not "open to the public," it is open to the residents, and the property owners (if they are different entities). Just because a place can be physically accessed from a public street does not make it de facto "open to the public."
On top of that, regardless of how the property is accessed, if there is posted signage stating that trespassing and/or photo taking on the property is prohibited, then it's prohibited, period, end of story. Think about private clubs - by all appearances they are "open to the public" like, say, a bar, but likely has special rules that one must abide by regardless; a local cigar bar I occasionally attend has such a "no pictures" policy.
Despite what helicopter parents and control freaks want to believe, private property is private property, and is governed by the laws of private property, not public. It's all in how the property owner wishes to enforce their own rules.
Following someone around on public property is now stalking?
For particular values of "following someone around," yes, depending on the state you're in. But that's not a new thing, we've had anti-stalking laws in one form or another since the 1980's at least.
This is collecting data nonintrusively, so at what point would it become illegal?
If the photo-takers are cruising private lots without permission, then it is not 'non-intrusive data collection,' it's trespassing. I'm pretty sure taking unauthorized photos while trespassing is also a crime, although that one is probably location-specific.
Static plates could be replaced by electronic displays that automatically go blank when the car is parked.
Or, you could just invest in a car cover and put it on your car and over the license plate when you park.
Yes, that's definitely a better idea than some fancy (read: expensive) electronic (read: tracking) device.
If you like to hack, you could also consider designing a cover that obscures the plate any time the vehicle is shifted into Park. At least, that's what I would do; way less of a PITA than fiddling with a car cover.
I have no problem with a private individual or company doing this.
I have a big problem with the government, who has the ability to deprive me of my posessions, my freedom, and my life, being able to do this.
What if the private company is willing to sell your identifying info to a group who intends to deprive you of your possessions, freedom, life, et. al.?
Is that about the place that your car is towed to upon request by the cops, and then you get to there and pay through the nose to get your car back?
No, that's an impound lot.
Repossession men typically work for private companies, like title loan joints.
They check the VIN number before towing
They're supposed to - but speaking as a person who almost had to brain a repo man once, because he was trying to steal a vehicle he had no right taking, I can assure you that this is not always the case.
Although, to be fair, his boss was more than willing to double check the VIN once I started throwing around terms like "attorney" and "castle law."
By that logic, I shouldn't be able to sell a picture taken in public because it has peoples' faces in them.
Unless you had them sign a model release, then yea, you're not allowed to do that.
Profiting from someone elses likeness without giving them compensation (or at least getting their permission) is already illegal in America.
The taking a picture part isn't the problem. The problem happens when you collate all those pictures and index them such that it becomes more stalker like in nature.
Also, I presume that none of these for-profit shutterbugs bothered to get the property owners to sign a release, thereby making the sale of said data de facto illegal.
Takking a photo in public should be freakishly illegal in a "modern, developed country"?
Reductio ad absurdum - we're not talking about the practice of innocuous picture-taking, we're talking about onerous collection of personal data into a for-profit database.
And, FWIW, go try and take some public photos of, say, a courthouse, or better yet, a power station. You'll discover the "public photography" double standard rather quickly, I assure you.
Also, here's a short article regarding the legal implications of taking pictures in select public places.
Should have paid her bill...
Or at least removed/covered the plate.
If these repo guys are just trolling parking lots looking for plate numbers, I'm betting they aren't going to bother with taking the time to hop out and read a VIN.
Last I checked, The Gubment isn't using drones to send hellfire missiles into American Citizen's homes without Judicial Review.
Check again; Anwar al Awlaki was an American citizen who was killed in a drone strike in Yemen.
Oh, I get it - you mean they haven't drone-struck (striked?) any American citizen on American soil! Well, technically, that is correct, although I recall it being discussed during the manhunt of Christopher Dorner, and in fact the President and Attorney General have already discussed the legality of such an action - they agree that it would be legal to murder US citizens without trial, on American soil.
Which means it's only a matter of time before it happens. Government types aren't likely to give up a power once they've established it.
Goddammit, this shit needs to stop NOW.
We need to establish the understanding that there is a significant distinction between OBSERVING and RECORDING.
I think the best way to achieve that would be to A) increase awareness of the situation, and B) encourage people to use those same tactics against the people who are invading our privacy for personal profit - When you see some sleazeball cruising your parking lot with a camera, point one right back at him, and upload the images to a public shaming database.
Also, I think it's illegal in some states to obscure your license plate.
As far as I know, it's illegal in every state to obscure your plate... while operating the vehicle on a public road.
When parked, not so much. Perhaps a James Bond-style rotating plate, or a cover that slides down over it when you shift into Park?
Not federally.
FTFY
Don't try and defend the indefensible - this entire thread is a discussion about Microsoft's desktop OS offerings, so if someone mentions "Apple OS" without specifically stating that they mean a mobile OS, then a reasonable person is going to assume that they are referring to Apple's desktop operating system.
He said "But when Apple not only puts their own web browser in their OS, *BUT FORBIDS INSTALLING ANY OTHER THIRD-PARTY BROWSER*".
Did you read the sentence before that one? You know, so you understand the context?
Here it is:
Considering that NOBODY had a mobile OS in the 90's, it stands to reason that even OP knew that we're discussing desktop offerings.
On top of that, when called out on this seemingly obvious aspect of human communication, OP decided to relocate the goalposts and toss in a non sequitur in a weak attempt to try and deflect from the fact that they are not doing a very good job of expressing themselves.
If you still don't get why OP failed to communicate effectively, take an English class.
Bullshit, people re-electing retards who become engrossed with their power in congress leads us to these things.
Not necessarily; for example, in the last election my district voted in a "Tea Party" candidate, whose entire campaign was based around the concept that he was "fed up" with the status quo in DC. So, he got himself into office, handed his auctioneering company over to a friend... and proceeded to become part of the exact same status quo he campaigned against. Like, the very first fucking day.
I think the problem isn't that we're "re-electing retards;" I think the problem is that anyone who isn't already a wealthy oligarch doesn't stand a chance of so much as getting on the ballot, let alone gaining enough support to actually win an election.
Until we de-rig the election process to allow candidates from demographics other than "filthy fucking rich" to actually stand a chance, nothing will change. At least, not for the better.
Do you honestly think they're not going to eventually bring it to their Mac desktops too (if they even keep making desktops)?
The suggestion was that Apple is already doing this on their desktop OS - which is not true.
Moving the goalposts from present to future doesn't change the fact that you were incorrect in your original supposition; be a man (or woman) and either admit your mistake, or at least stop prattling on about it - doubling down on being wrong isn't going to win you any friends (although it may influence some people).
This summarizes it pretty well:
http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/10/mozilla-firefox-ios/
We're talking about desktop OS, not mobile.
FWIW, I have Chrome installed on my 2008 MB running Leopard, and it works just fine. Better than Safari, even.
It's a fair point. I don't use my telephone when I'm driving, hands-free or otherwise, because it would be too distracting.
I don't interact with mine while I drive, but since I normally start my trip by plugging the phone into the aux port and firing up Pandora, I can't really say that I "don't use it" while driving.
I do, however, find somewhere safe to pull off the road if I ever need to make or receive any sort of communication.
They're standard on Honda Civics as of this year, I think. Not sure if that includes steering wheel-based controls (but man, I'd hope so!)
Indeed. They are being introduced with iOS Carplay, so yes, that would presumably include touchscreens. But that's the upcoming model. The existing model has a screen which is surrounded by manual buttons, so I guess that's not touchscreen.
Did not know they were going with Carplay (or carPlay or CarPlay or however they trademarked it), might be interesting to see how/if that effects sales.
I said 'touchscreens suck;' you said 'That's why there's typically car stereo controls on the steering wheel.'
Right. It makes it safer, in that you don't have to take your eyes off the road or hand off the steering wheel, regardless if the centre dash controls are manual or touchscreen.
Yea, well, I was being a pedant yesterday, not sure why. Off my rhythm or some such.
Holding the cruise control level to change speed is more distracting than holding a button to activate voice commands - I have to visibly look at the speed that I'm setting.
Hmm, interesting; I wonder, which takes more brainpower away from the task of driving: holding down the CC button while looking at the speed for a few seconds, or holding down the "phone" button while you think about the upcoming call...
2 things:
1 - the indicator stick anecdote doesn't really apply, but the one about the cruise control is a good analogue.
2 - increasing/decreasing the speed via the cruise controls is directly related to the act of piloting your automobile, and seems less likely to be as distracting as a button you have to hold to do non-driving-related activities, such as phone calls.
All in all, seems like the question would make a pretty good basis for study.
So, you want a system that restricts access... but you don't want to restrict access. You want logging and tracking of users... but you don't want to have to read logs or tracking tables.
My suggestion? Find a new line of work, budro; you ain't cut out for this.